TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (11) TMI 92
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ath Sao, from the office of trustee of the God Shri Ramchandraji Swamy 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 up till that time living jointly, all the co-shares 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; Keshoram 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 to Nand Kishore Sao, while the second appellant, Ramanuj is Sarojoo ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ne hand and Jamuna Prasad, on the other, at which, it was said, that Telibandha fell to the share of Sarjoo Prasad's four sons. Thereafter in 1913, there was a further partition between Sarjoo Prasad's four sons and the defendant at which Telibandha was allotted to defendant's father Ramsaranlal alone. 6. On a consideration of the evidence the Trial Court held that there had been a valid dedication in respect of the village Telibandha for the Temple of Shri Ramchandra Swamy. It was not satisfied that the dedication had been made by Dinanath himself but held that there was such a dedication sometime before 1896 and that that dedication was confirmed by all the co-sharers at the time of the partition of 1896. As regards the Bagchi Award, the learned Judge was of opinion that it did purport to revoke the dedication and to allot the village to the members of one branch of the family with only a moral obligation to look after the temple but this later Award had all along remained a dead letter and did not affect the Panch Faisla Award of 1896. The Trial Court held that a valid trust had been created in favour of the temple and it was a public religious trust, as Shri Ramcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....charge on it to meet the expenses of the temple. The relevant portion of the Award is in its second paragraph. The Award is in Hindi and the second paragraph has been translated thus :- "2. Mouza Telibandha alias Karawatoti, sixteen annas, Asli Men Dakhli (i.e. village proper with the out-skirts under control), in tahsil Raipur together with all rights and interests of proprietorship has been given to Ramsaranlal with the consent of and at the instance of all the co-shares for the under-mentioned purposes. From the profits and income of mouza Telibandha, Ramsaran Lal shall incur the expenses of Samaiyas (probably occasions), celebrations, Bho-Rag, Bal-Bhog of daily routine and white-washing and plastering, etc., and other work of Shri Ramchandra Swami Math Shri Dudhadharji, according as the same expenses have seen continuing to be met up to this day from the time of Dinanath Sao, Sobharam Sao and Sarjoo Prasad Sao. If this work that it being done from long before, fails to be done, then out of all these six co-shares, any co-sharer, who may be fit to do that work and carry it on, shall take this Mouza Telibandha together with all rights and interests into his possession and carry....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd take away from the absolute title given in the earlier portion. What is to be done where this happens ? It is well settled that in case of such a conflict the earlier disposition of absolute title should prevail and the later directions of disposition should be disregarded as unsuccessful attempts to restrict the title already given. (See Sahebzada Mohd. Kamgar Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deo) [1960] 3 SCR 604 . It is clear, however, that an attempt should always be made to read the two parts of the documents harmoniously, if possible. It is only when this is not possible, e.g., where an absolute title is given is in clear and unambiguous terms and the later provisions trench on the same, that the later provisions have to be held to be void. 13. Turning now to para. 2 of the Panch Faisala, we find that the opening clause while providing for giving the village Telibandha to Ramsaran Lal uses the words "Kul haq haquq samet milkiyat ke." It has been contended by the learned Attorney-General on behalf of the respondent that these words show an intention to give an absolute interest of ownership in the property to Ramsaran Lal. Accordingly, argues the learned Attorney-General....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the absolute interest that examination of the context was not necessary. On the contrary in each case they emphasised the need of examining the context to find out what was intended. This was quite in line with what had been decided in one of the earliest cases - (Mohamed Shumsool v. Shewukram) I.L.R.(1874) IndAp 7, where the word "Malik" came up for consideration. In that case the question arose whether a testator in saying that "only Mst. Rani Dhan Kowar, the widow of my son is my heir and except Mst. Ranee Dhun Kowari aforesaid none other is; nor shall be my heir and Malik". The document gave an estate of inheritance to the Rani which she was able absolutely to alienate. The Privy Council thought it proper to take into consideration the ordinary notions and wishes of a Hindu with respect to devolution of property and proceeded to observe : "Having reference to these considerations, together with the whole of the will, all the expressions of which must be taken together without any one being insisted upon to the exclusion of others, their Lordships are of opinion that the two courts in India, who both substantially agree upon this point, are right in construing the intention ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e owner of the village but give him possession and management of the village for the benefit of Shri Ramchandra Swamy temple. Immediately after saying that the village is given to Ramsaranlal "Kul haq haquq samet milkiyat" the document says in the same breath that this is being done for the under-mentioned purposes. Then the purposes are mentioned in the next sentence as meeting the expenses of worship and maintenance of the temple of Shri Ramchandra Swamy. The provision is next made that if Ramsaranlal does not carry out this purpose then out of the co-sharers between whom the partition was being made, any co-sharer may carry it on and for this such co-sharer shall take the Mouza Telibandha into his possession. The document then proceeds to say that none of the co-sharers and Ramsaranlal had any right over the village. Then follows the prohibition against alienation. 21. The learned Judges of the High Court have said that the use of the words "from the profits and income of mouza Telibandha Ramsaranlal shall incur the expenses......" indicate that only a portion of the income was intended to be used and that supports the presumption arising from the use of the word "Kul haq haquq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e facts under which the provision of dedication was made in the award were correctly stated there. That is, these provisions were made "with the consent of and at the instance of all the co-sharers." The act of the Panchas was thus really the act of the owners of the property and as owners had full right to make a valid dedication to the deity the dedication as made in Para. 2 of the Panch Faisla must be held to be valid. 24. This brings us to the question if the dedication thus made has ceased to be valid by anything which happened afterwards. It appears that immediately after the award was made, it was presented before the Sub Registrar, Raipur, for registration. Within a few days, however, an application in connection with this matter appears to have been made before the Civil Judge, Raipur. In this Ramsaranlal stated his objection to the award on the ground that "the Panchas did not read out the award before him, that they had asked him to state in writing his objections which he did but they did not take any evidence." The Civil Judge rejected Ramsaran Lal's contention and returned that award to the Sub-Registrar with a direction to register it in due course and also dire....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n shown to have any legal infirmity ? The answer to this question must be the negative. The plaintiffs in the suit of 1897 did, it is true, allege certain infirmities. We need not discuss the question whether the temple was a necessary party to the suit. For, in fact, the Court did not consider whether such infirmity existed and as pointed out above, dismissed the suit. The reference to Mr. Bagchi was made by the parties to the suit orally requesting him as shown by the preamble to the award "to decide whether the Faisla Panchayati (i.e., award of panchas) was proper or not, adding that in case it was not proper, changes may be made in it whenever it may be necessary and improper". On a reasonable interpretation of these words it does not seem that Mr. Bagchi was asked to consider whether the original award suffered from any infirmity in law. Even more important than that is the fact that there is not a single word in Bagchi's award to indicate, even remotely, that in his opinion, the award suffered from any infirmity. On the contrary, Mr. Bagchi accepted the previous award and gave his own interpretation of it, saying that by the award after "including mouzas Borsi and Teliban....