1. Dispute concerning the absolute dedication of property to a religious trust — Suit for removal of trustee and accounts under Section 92, Code of Civil Procedure. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1962 Supreme(SC) 389
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
22nd November 1962.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K.N. WANCHOO, K.C. DAS GUPTA AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Ramkishorelal and another, Appellants
Versus
Kamalnarayan, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 523 of 1960.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solititor-General of India, (M/s. B. R. L. Iyengar, B. R. G. K. Achar and K. L. Hathi, Advocates, with him), for Appellants. Mr. M. C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, (M/s. J. B. Dadachanji 892 O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, Advocates of M/s. J. B. Dadachanji and Co. with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
B.R.C.K.ACHAR, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, K.L.Hathi, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan
B.R.C.K.ACHAR, B.R.L.Iyengar, C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, K.L.Hathi, M.C.SETALVAD, O.C.MATHUR, Ravindra Narayan
Terms denoting ownership (like "Milkiyat") create a rebuttable presumption of absolute title; context, such as prohibitions on alienation and specific religious purposes, can displace this. Once property is absolutely dedicated to a deity, the former owners cannot legally revoke or modify that dedication.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 92; Charitable and Religious Trusts Act - Sections 3 and 6 - Construction of documents - Meaning of "Milkiyat" - Whether use of words denoting proprietorship invariably implies absolute ownership - The intention of the parties must be gathered by reading the document as a whole; while words like "Malik" or "Milkiyat" typically create a presumption of absolute and full ownership, this presumption can be displaced by the context or surrounding circumstances, such as prohibitions on alienation and specific mandates for the use of income for religious purposes (Paras 12, 14, 17, 18).
(B) Trust and Dedication - Absolute dedication of property to a deity - Once an absolute dedication of property has been made in favour of a deity, the former owners lose the legal authority to revoke, modify, or go behind that dedication through subsequent awards or agreements (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
A suit was brought for the removal of a trustee and for accounts, alleging that a village had been absolutely dedicated to a temple. The central dispute concerned the interpretation of a partition award which granted the village to a person "together with all rights and interests of proprietorship," but simultaneously stipulated that the income be used for temple expenses, prohibited any transfer of the property by sale, mortgage, gift, or will, and provided that if the temple work failed, other co-sharers could take possession. A subsequent award had suggested the property was held in full proprietorship subject only to a charge for temple expenses.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the partition award constituted an absolute dedication of the village to the temple, and the person in possession was merely a manager and trustee. The subsequent award had no legal effect because the original owners had no legal authority to revoke a valid absolute dedication already made to the deity.
Issues: Whether the use of terms denoting proprietorship in a partition award created absolute ownership in the manager or an absolute dedication to the temple; and whether a subsequent award could supersede a prior absolute dedication.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the intention of the parties must be ascertained by considering the document as a whole rather than isolated expressions. The presumption of absolute ownership arising from the word "Milkiyat" was rebutted by the explicit prohibition against alienation and the requirement that the property be reserved for the temple's purposes. Furthermore, once property is absolutely dedicated to a deity, the dedicator's title is extinguished, rendering any subsequent attempt to reclaim or modify the dedication void.
Result: Appeal allowed. Case remanded.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a partition award created an absolute dedication to a deity or granted full proprietorship subject to a charge for temple expenses. (Para 5 , 9 )
3. Interpretation of ownership terms requires contextual analysis; restrictive clauses and prohibitions on alienation in the partition award indicate an absolute dedication for religious purposes. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Presumption of absolute ownership from terms like Milkiyat is displaceable by context; absolute dedication to a deity cannot be revoked by subsequent agreements between former owners. (Para 17 , 18 , 22 , 23 )
5. Appeal allowed — Property held as absolutely dedicated to the temple — Case remanded to High Court for determination of remaining issues. (Para 25 , 26 )
6. Does the use of the word Milkiyat or Malik in a document invariably signify the transfer of absolute and full ownership?
No. While such terms ordinarily express an intention to grant absolute ownership, this is a presumption that must be examined in context. If the document contains restrictive clauses or specific purposes that conflict with absolute ownership, the context may displace the presumption. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. How should a court resolve a conflict between a clause granting absolute title and subsequent directions restricting that title in the same document?
The court should first attempt to read the provisions harmoniously. If harmony is impossible and an absolute title is given in clear, unambiguous terms, the later restrictive provisions are generally disregarded as unsuccessful attempts to limit the title. (Para 12 )
8. Can a subsequent agreement or award between former owners revoke an absolute dedication of property already made to a deity?
No. Once an absolute dedication of property is made in favor of a deity, the former owners lose legal authority over the property. Consequently, any subsequent agreement or award between them cannot legally revoke or alter the nature of that dedication. (Para 22 , 23 )
9. Does the subsequent conduct of a trustee, such as treating trust income as family income, convert an absolute dedication into a partial one?
No. The course of conduct of the parties is irrelevant for the construction of a document that unambiguously shows an absolute dedication. Such conduct cannot change the legal nature of the dedication. (Para 24 )
10. Can a partition award create a valid dedication to a deity under Hindu Law?
Yes, provided the provisions are made with the consent and at the instance of all co-sharers. In such cases, the act of the arbitrators is effectively the act of the owners, who possess the right to make a valid dedication. (Para 21 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : There exists at Raipur in Madhya Pradesh an old Math by the name of Dudhadhari Math within which is a temple where the idols of Shri Ramchandra, Sita, Laxman, Bharat, Satrughan and Hanumanji have been worshipped for very many years. For the expenses of the worship of the deities and for the upkeep of the temple, one village by the name of Hirmi was dedicated by Dinanath Sao, a wealthy inhabitant of the locality. The main controversy in the present litigation is whether another village of the name of Telibandha which also belonged to Dinanath was dedicated absolutely to the temple either by Dinanath Sao himself or later on by his descendants.
2. The two appellants, both descendants of Dinanath Sao brought the present suit under S. 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1908 for removal of the respondent Kamal Narayan, another descendant of Dinanath Sao, from the office of trustee of the God Shri Ramchandraji Swami for the village of Telibandha and for accounts. The appellant s case in the plaint was that Telibandha was dedicated to the temple of Shri Ramchandraji as early as 1857 by Dinanath Sao himself and later on in the year 1896 when a partition took place between his descendants who were uptill that time living jointly, all the cosharers not only re-affirmed the dedication made by Dinanath Sao of this village of Telibandha but themselves dedicated the village Telibandha to the deities in this temple by accepting the award made by the Panchas.
3. Dinanath died in 1862, leaving his two sons Sobharam and Keshoram. Sobha Ram had three sons, Sarjoo Prasad, Gokul Prasad and Jamna Prasad; Keshorarn had also three sons, Ramdin, Gajanand and Nand Kishore. At the time of the partition in 1896 Sarjoo Prasad was dead and the parties to the partition were Sarjoo Prasad s four sons, Ram Saran Lal, Ramhirde, Ram Krishna and Ramanuj, representing Sarjoo Prasad s Branch and the other five grandsons of Dinanath. The first appellant Ram Kishore is the son of Nand Kishore Sao, while the second appellant, Ramanuj, is Sarjoo Prasad s son. The respondent is the son of Ram Saran Lal.
4. By the award of 1896, it is the plaintiffs case, Ram Saran Lal was not given any proprietary interest in the village Telibandha but was merely made the Manager on behalf of the deities for this property on Ram Saran Lal s death in 1930, Kamal Narayan, his son, became the trustee. According to the plaintiffs, the temple was a public temple and the trust a public trust. The plaintiffs allege that Kamal Narayan committed several breaches of trust by the sale of certain lands of Mouza Telibandha for the sum of Rs. 1,06,774/l/- and in other ways. The plaintiffs first approached the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur with a petition under S. 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act for directions on Kamal Narayan as provided in that section. Directions were accordingly issued by the Additional District Judge; but with this the respondent did not comply. It was then that the present suit was brought by the plaintiffs without the previous consent of the Advocate-General as is permitted by S. 6 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that Telibandha village was held by the defendant in trust for Shri Ramchandra of the Dudhadhari Math and that he had committed breaches of such trust, for his removal from the position of a trustee and for appointment of the first plaintiff in his place; for an order on him to render accounts since 1936 and to deposit Rs. 1,06,774/1/- which he got as sale proceeds.
5. The defendant denied that Telibandha was ever dedicated. As regards the Award of 1896 his plea was that it did not express accurately the decision of the Arbitrators and that, in any case, it was superseded by the Award of Mr. Bagchi on May 14,1898, which was accepted by all the co-sharers as the actual settlement of their own and on the basis of which a suit brought to challenge the validity of th
