TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court: Absolute Dedication to Deity in Property Dispute</h1> <h3>Nirmala Bala Ghose and Ors. Versus Balai Chand Ghose and Ors.</h3> The Supreme Court concluded that the properties described in the schedules were absolutely dedicated to the deity Sri Gopal Jiu. The Court held that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Ownership of the properties described in the schedules annexed to the plaints.2. Validity and nature of the deed of dedication dated September 15, 1944.3. Determination of whether the dedication was partial or absolute.4. Rights and roles of the Shebaits and their descendants.5. Validity of the directions for accumulation of income.6. Application of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Ownership of the properties described in the schedules annexed to the plaints:The Trial Court decreed that Balai was the owner of the disputed properties and held that the deed of endowment executed by Nirmala on March 8, 1939, was 'sham and colourable.' The High Court modified this decree, holding that the deed was not sham but amounted to a partial dedication in favor of the deity Sri Gopal Jiu, creating a charge on the properties for the purposes of the deity. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that the properties were absolutely dedicated to the deity Sri Gopal Jiu.2. Validity and nature of the deed of dedication dated September 15, 1944:The Trial Court declared that Nirmala was a benamidar of Balai for the properties in the suit and that the deed of endowment dated September 15, 1944, did not amount to an absolute dedication. The High Court dismissed the appeal against this decree, subject to clarifications that it created only a charge in favor of the deities. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that the properties were absolutely dedicated to the deity Sri Gopal Jiu.3. Determination of whether the dedication was partial or absolute:The High Court held that the dedication was partial, creating a charge in favor of the deity. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the deed's terms disclosed a clear intention that the entire property was to belong to the deity and no one else had a beneficial interest. The Court emphasized that the predominant theme of the dedication was that the estate belonged to the deity Sri Gopal Jiu, and no beneficial interest was reserved to the settlor or her heirs.4. Rights and roles of the Shebaits and their descendants:The Supreme Court noted that the deed provided detailed directions regarding the succession to the Shebaitship and the responsibilities of the Shebaits. The Court stated that reasonable provisions for remuneration, maintenance, and residence of the Shebaits do not invalidate an endowment. The Shebaits and their descendants were given certain interests in the property, but this did not cut down the absolute interest conveyed to the deity.5. Validity of the directions for accumulation of income:The Supreme Court did not find it necessary to determine the validity of the directions for accumulation of income. It stated that if the direction for accumulation is invalid, the benefit of the income would enure for the benefit of the deity without restriction, and the income would not revert to the settlor.6. Application of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure:The Supreme Court held that the power under Order 41 Rule 33 should be applied with discretion and is intended to do justice by granting relief to a party who has not appealed when refusing to do so would result in inconsistent or unworkable orders. The Court concluded that it could not exercise this power in favor of the deities in this case, as the decree against the deities had become final, and Nirmala did not represent the deities.Separate Judgment by Bachawat, J.:Bachawat, J., in his separate judgment, agreed with the majority regarding the deed Ext. 11(a) but disagreed on the point that Nirmala could not challenge the decree in Suit No. 67 of 1955. He opined that as a joint Shebait, Nirmala had the right to challenge the decree affecting the deity's property. However, since the majority held that the appeal was not maintainable, he did not examine the merits of the case regarding Ext. 11.Order:The Supreme Court allowed Appeals Nos. 966 and 968 of 1964, declaring that the properties in deed Ext. 11(a) were absolutely dedicated to the deity Sri Gopal Jiu, and dismissed Suits Nos. 79 and 80 of 1954. Appeal No. 967 of 1964 was dismissed with costs in favor of Balai.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
