HARENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. v. KALIRAM DAS-DEAD BY L. Rs.

492 **HARENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA** **&** **ORS.** _v._ **KALIRAM DAS-DEAD** **BY** **L.** **Rs.** _November_ 22, 1971 #### [K. S. HEGDE, A. N. GROVER AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.] _Code_ _of_ _Civil Procedure_ 1908-S. _92-A_ _grant made by_ _an_ _A/10111_ _King in Assam to a number_ _of_ _Bliakats for the propagation_ _of_ _"Nama_ _**Dliarn1a" and for continuance**_ _**of**_ _**Sravana Kirtana-Dlzarma-Whether suit**_ _by the descendants_ _of_ _tire_ _Bhakats not maintainable because provisions_ _of_ _s._ 92 _not_ _followed._ **The suit was instituted** **by** **the plaintiffs in a representative capacity as** Bhakats. According to the allegations in the plaint, a grant of rent free land of approximately 316 bighas was made by a Kmg during the preBritish period in the name of one G, for the establishment of a vaishnavic institution. It was made for the propag_ation of N amc Dharma and for **continuance of Sravana-Kirtana-Dharma.** Defendants I to 20 were alleged to be the heirs of G. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the descendants of the I 0 Bhakats who were mentioned in the copper plate creating the endowment. In the copper plate, th• grant was t~rmed as Brahmottar. According to the plaintiffs, the grant was a Dharmottar grant though called Brahmqttar in the copper **plate.** **Jn** **other words.** **it** **was** **an** **endowment created fvr** **religious** **and** charitable purposes and it did not confer benefit only on the grantee or his heirs. It was asserted by the plaintiffs. that the detendanls were int,,r**fering** **with** **their rights relating to the institution and** w~re **also not pro-** perly repairing the Namghar (the place of worship). The ~elief claimed was for a declaration that the disputed land was a gift to the institution (sat sanghee satra) and for possession. **In** **tQe** **written statement, it was contended,** _**inter**_ _**:i,lia,**_ **that the disputed** land was not Dharmottar. It was a property gifted to late G, the predeces**sors** **of** **the defendants from generation to generation** **aud that the** **suit,** **according to the defendants, was not n1aintainable because the** **J}rovisions** of s. 92. Civil Procedure Cocle had not been complied with. The trial court held that the suit was not maintainable because s. 92 of the Ch-ii Procedure Code was not followed and that the suit property was Brahmottar and not Dharmottar In appeal the Additional District Judge held that the suit did not fall within s. 92 C.P.C., and so was maintainable and that the suit property wa• Dharmottar and not Brahmottar. According to the learned Judge, the plain meaning of the grant was that G, was made the medhi (high priest) **for the satra.** **The grant** **'"'as** **contemporaneous with the establishment** **of** **the Satra.** **The purpose** **for** **which the grant was made was** **specifica11y** **for** **the propagation** **of** **Sravanakirtana-Dharma.** **The word 'Brahmottar• had** **been qualified** **bv** **"Punyarthe". which meant** **ufor** **piety".** **The grant was,** therefore. not a personal grant. Accordingly, he held the plaintiffs entitled to fife the suit and the appeal was allowed. The Defendants filed ·an appeal to the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that the relief claimed did not come within the provisions of s. 92 C. P. C .. and. the Hi~h Court agreed with the translation made by the learned Addi. District Jud~e of the relevant passage of the copper plate. A B ### c **D** **F** G **H** A B ## c D HARENDRA _v._ KALIDAS _(Grover,_ _J.)_ 493 On an appeal by certificate, HELD : (1) In the facts and circumstances of the case, s. 92 of tb.e Code of Civil Procedure did not apply. It is well sen led that a suit under s. 92 C .P .C., is of a special nature which. pre-supposes the existence of a public trust of a religious or charitable characte(. Such. suit can proceed onlv on the allegation that there is a breach of such trust or that directions from the court are necessary for the administration of the trust. Jn the sUit, there must be a, prayer for one or other of the reliefs . that are specifically mentioned in the section. In tbe present case. none ol the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs fell within the oection. The declarations which were sought could not therefore attract s. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. [499 DJ . (2) As regards the correct translation of the copper plate on which the grant was -made there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the translation appearing jn the judgment of the Addi. District Judge which wa' affirmed by the -High Court. Both the Addi. District Judge and the High Court were more familiar with the language and the origio of the establishn1ent of satras and its historical background. They \vere in a better position to interpret the terms of the grant than others. Therefore, there was no reason 'Nhy this Court should interfere with the conci usions arrived at by both the courts below cspeciaJly when this Court- also was inclined to the vie\\' that the grant was not a personal grant made in favour of the high priest. The \'4/0rd 'Brahmottar" was used in the grant but mere uSc of that word wo!J]d not change the e.ssential character 01 the grant, r1amely. that it was a Dharmottar grant made for the propagation of SravanaKirtana Dhanna and not to the high priest and his own brothers in their personal capacity. [500 CJ _Jihan Chandra Sanna_ _Do!oi_ v. _Anandi_ _Rtl1n_ _Kalila_ & _Ors._ 11961] E 3 S.C. R. 947, referred to and. distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civii Appeal No. 1273 of 1966. Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 30, 1960 cf the Assam High Court in Second Appeal No. 151 of 1958. F _D._ _N. Mukherjee._ for the appellants. _Sukumar Ghose,_ for respondents Nos. l (a), 2(a), 3, 8 and 19. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gwver, J. This is an appeal by certificate from the judgement of the Assam and Nagaland High Court arising out of a G suit which was filed as far back as May 1948. The main controversy arises out of a grant on a Copper Plate made by Ah,m King Maharaj Sibasingha of some landed property in the year 1663 Saka Era corresponding to 1741 A. D. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in a representative capa city as Bhakats. According to the allegations in the plaint this ##### 1-1 grant was made "by the King in the name of one Gadapani Bhatta charjya for the establishµient of a Satra (Vaishnavic institution), ##### ff was made for the propagation of Nama Dharma and for con 'tinuance of _Sraban_ _Kirtan Dharma._ Defendants 1 to 20 were 494 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1972) k l>c.L.1'. alleged to be the heirs of Gadapani Bhattacharjya. The plaintiffs claimed that they were the descendants of the 10 Bhakats who were mentioned in the Copper Plate creating the endowment, the name of the Satra being Sat Sangee Satra. The original grant was in respect of 79 puras of land which would be equivalent to 316 bighas. It was rent-free. In the Copper Plate the grant was termed as Brahmottar. After the British rule commenced there was an enquiry in which the grandson of the original grantee (Gadapani Bhattacharjya) made a claim of 83 puras of land with l 0 bighas of Sat Sangee Satra. This was cm:ifirmed by the British Government. During the demarcation survey of 18 81, the area was reduced to 304 bighas and in the survey and settlement of 1884-85 it was shown as 313 bighas roughly. In the subsequent settlement of 1905-06, the land was assessed to half revenue, known as _Nispi Kheraj._ The area covered by _Nispi Kheraj_ or _Nisf Kheraj_ was 243 bighas. During the current 30 year settlement the _Ni.ipi_ _Kheraj_ land was shown to cover an area of 230 bighas odd and the suit was confined to that area. According to the case of the plaintiffs, the grant, as a matter of fact, was a Dharmottar grant though called Brahmouar in the Copper Plate. In other words, it was an endowment created for religious and charitable purposes and it did not confer benefit only on the grantee (Gadapani Bhattacharjya) or his heirs and descendants. The Sat Sangee Satra to be established on the basis of this grant was known as Bhanukuchi Satra along with a Nam ghar. It was asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants were interfering with their rights relating to the Satra and were also not properly repairinF" the Nam ghar etc. It was alleged that some of the plaintiffs were still living in the land covered by the Nispi-kherai Patta. Paragraph 12 of the plaint ·may be reproduced: " 12. · In fact the land described in the Schedule of disputed patta is the Dharmottar land gifted to the Bhanukuchi Satsangi Satra. The land has been absolutely endorsed for religious purpose, hence the defendants have not pos~essed any title of their own over those. They are the trustees only on behalf of the Satra. They are bound to maintain the said Satra with the income of these lands by observing the Dou] festival and the usual Nam-Kirtan and the plaintiffs as the Bhakats of the said Satra are entitled to possess their own basti and paddy lands etc. by going and observing the NamKirtan in the Satra house of Dag No. 472 and the Dou! festival by erecting the Doul stage as before in Dag No. 428. Hence it is necessary to obtain a decree after a declaration from the Civil Court and with the said A B ### c D E F G H llARENDRA r. J-;ALIDAS ( _Gro1'er,_ _J.)_ 495 A B ## c D E F G H end and view it is necessary to obtain possession from ##### the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs. If it is necessary the plaintiffs will file a scheme case afterwards". ##### The relief which was claimed was for a declaration that I.he dis puted land was a gift to the Bhanukuchi Sat Sang as mentioned in paragraph 12 and for possession. ##### In the written statement the. position taken up was that the disputed land was not Dharmottar. It was a property gifted to late Gadapani Brahmin, the- predecessor of the defendants. Gadapani Bhattacharjya was a good religious minded Brahmin and the Ahom King, for the advantage of preaching religion, gifted the land to him as Niskar Brahmottar generation to generation. Gadapani ;Bhattacharjya became the full proprietor and the defendants were his descendants and 'they had been in peaceful possession in that capacity all along. - It was denied that there was ##### any Sat Sangee Satra of Bhanukuchi. It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had no _locus_ _standi_ to file the suit. Paragraph 4 of the wriuen statement was in these terms: ##### "4. It is true that these defendants are the absolute owners in respect of the disputed land. The English had conquered this Assam province. There by all the claims and the arrangements of the former ruler over the land etc. of the country were extinguished and the British Government also issued an order, to that effect. Though it is taken for granted that )he" disputed land was gifted to the Satsangi Satra in ancient time yet by an order of the British Government the nature of that Dhannottar land was extinguished. That by a lakheraj investigation during the British rule the patta has been issued in ewry settlement in the name of late Debi Datta by keeping Brahnrottar in force and on the basis of that fom1 the patta has been issued in every settlement in the name of Debi Datta and after him in [1] the name of these defendants, who are his descendants. On the basis that patta these defendants have been entitled to become the full proprietors to possess the disputed land. The plaintiffs are not entitled to have any ri,ght in respect of the disputed land on the basis of the patta also and in they have not acquired any right thereon". According to ilie defendants the suit ~as not maintainable be· cause the provisions of the law rela~ng ito a suit based on breach of trust had not been complied will!. ##### The Trial Court framed 7 issues out of which only ilie follow# ing may be mentioned : " l. ls the >Uit maintainable in its µresent form _'!_ _4116_ SlJl'REME COURT REPORTS (1972J 2 S.C.R. 2., Have the plaintiffs _locus_ _standi_ to bring the suit _'!_ 3. Is the disputed land a Dharmottar property and absolutely endowed for religious purposes as alleged?". The Trial Court found that the suit was not maintainable owing to non-compliance with the provisions of section 92, Code of Civil Procedure. On issue No. 2 its decision was in favour of the plaintiffs as also on issue No. 5. On that issue it was held that the suit prop·~rty was Brahmotttar and .not Dharmottar. In view of the finding on issue No. 1, the suit was dismissed . An appeal was taken to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Lower Assam. He held that the suit did not fall within section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, and was therefore, maintainable. The learned Judge referred to the relevant portion of the grant which according to him was to be translated as follows: "Be it known to all that the Satsangi Satra of 10 Bhakats is established. Gadapani Brahmin is made the Medhi of th..: said Satra; and the lands are granted to him as Brahmottar for religious purposes. Let him occupy the land from generation to generation after propagating the Sraban Kirtan Dharma':. In the opinion of the Additional Distt. Judge the plain meaning of the grant was that Gadapani Brahmin was made the Medhi of the Satra. The grant was contemporaneous with the establishment of the Satra. The purpose for which the grant was made was specifically stated to be for the propagation of Sraban Kirtan Dharma. The word "Brahmottar'' had been qualified by "Punyarthe" which meant for piety. The grant was, therefore, not a personal grant. 'The words of the grant indicated that it had been made for some religious purpose for which the Satra was established. But for his appointment as Medhi and the establishment of the Satra, the grant to Gadapani would have been a personal one. The learned Additional Distt. Judge appears to have been fully conversant with the various Satras which were to be found in Assam and with the manner in which they were created. After considering the entire evidence, he came to the conclusion that there was a Satra at Bhanukuchi and ithat the grant was to the Satra and not to Gadapani in his personal capacity. It was further held by him that the establishment of the Satra and the creation of the office of the Bhakats was contemporaneous so far as the present case was concerned. The plaintiffs, therefore, by virtue of the criginal grant, were entitled to file a suit. The appeal was allowed and a cka~c was granted for a declaration A B ### c D E F G H A B ## c D E F G The High Court held that the reliefs claimed in the suit did not come within the provisions of sec. 92. As regards ·the correct interpretation of the relevant passage on the Copper Plate by which the grant was created, the High Court agreed with the interpretation put by the Additional Distt. Judge on the relevant passage. The original text was quoted as agreed to by counsel for both the parties and its English translation was given as ## follows :-, "The King has for the purpose of earning merit for himself and his brother, made this Brahmottar grant consisting of the lands as mentioned herein along with three Paiks and ten families of Bhakats to Gadapani Brahman who is appointed to be the Medhi (high priest) of the Sat Sangi Satra. He will for generations enjoy the land by being in the service of God and for the purpose of perpetuation of the cult of the Sravan Kirtan Dharma". The High Court examined the text in the background of the insti tution of Satras in Assam and came to \he conclusion that the intention of the King in making the grant was for the benefit of Sat Sangee Sctra. The High Court also took into consideration Exhibi1 2, a copy of a petition of claim made by Debi Datta Sarrna in the Lakheraj enquiry in the year 1884 and came to the conclusion that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had accepted the position th&t he or other descendants of Gadapani Brahmin were merely trustees in respect of the land which be HARENDRA _v._ KAL!DAS _(Grover,_ J.) 497 that the disputed land was the Dharmottar property of the Bhanu.kuchi Sat Sangee Satra and that the plaintiffs were the Bhakats ##### of that Satra having a right to perform n:ligious functions pres cribed for them in the Satra. The suit for possession, however, was dismissed. The defendants filed an appeal to the High Court. Only two # points were raised before the High Court. They wero : "I. As to whether 1he suit is hit by section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure; and 2. As to whether Ext. 1, the Copper Plate, has been correctly interpreted to hold 1that the original grant created by the Ahom King was of the nature of Dharrnottar grant or a religious trust for the benefit of the Satra or that it was merely a personal gift in favour of Gadapani Bhatta chariya who was the original Medhi or the high priest named in regards to the Satra created by the Copper Plate?" 498 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. longed to the Satra and the Bhakats or the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs had interest in the same.. The appeal of the defendants was consequently dismissed. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs has sought to raise the same points which were agitated before the High Court. The first one relates to the applicability of sec. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The second relates to the correct interpretation of the terms ot the original grant with regard to its true nature, namelv, whether it was a Dharmottar grant or a religious trmt for the benefit of the Satra or that it was merely a personal gift in favour of Gadapan.i. Section 92. Code of Civil Procedure provides that in case of any alleged breach of anv exnress or constructive trust created for public puroose of a ·charitable or religious nature or where the direction of the court is deemed necessarv for the administration of any such trust, the consent of. the Advocate General has to be obtained for institmion of the suit bv two or more persons havin~ an interest in the trust. Further the suit must be for obtaininl! # a decree for the following : "(a) removing any trustee; (b) appointing a new trustee; ( c) vesting any property in a trustee; (cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property; ( d) di!ecting accounts and inquiries; ( e) declaring what pronortion of the trust-property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust;. (f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold. mortgaged or exchanged; _(_ g) settling a scheme; or (h) granting such further or other relief as the nature of the case may require". The High Court analvsed the iJlaint which is orimarilv to he looked at for deciding the question of applicabilitv of sec. 92. The High Court was of the view that the reliefs claimed in· the plaint were stated m~inly in para 12, which if analysed, would Involve the following ~ ( 1) A declara'iion that the suit land was Dharmottar land gifted to Bhanukuchi Sat Sangi Satra for a A B ### c D E F G H HARENDRA "· KALT DAS _( Grm"el',_ _J.)_ 499 A B # c D E F G H ##### It was added in the plaint that a scheme case would be instituted later on if considered necessary. The High Court was of the view thatnone of the reliefs claimed in the plaint brought it within. the terms of sec. 92. It is well settled by the decisions of this Court that a suit under sec. 92 is of a special nature which pre-. supposes the exiS'lence of a public trust of a religious. or charitable character. Such suit can proo~ed only on the allegation that there is a breach of such trust or that directions from the Court are necessary for the administration of the tru~'t. In the suit, however, there must be a praver for one or other of the reliefs that are specifically mentioned in the section. Only then 'the suit has to be filed in conformity with the provisions of section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (See _Mahant Pragdasii Guru Bhag·_ _wandasii_ v. _Patel lshwarlalbhai .Narsibhai and others)(")._ It is quite clear that none of the reliefs claimed by the plaintiffs fell within the section. The declarations which were sought could not possibly attract the. applicability of sec. 92 of the Civil Procedure Code. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that non-compliance with 'that section did not affect the maintair.ability of the suit. On the second point our attention has been invited to the translation of the Copper Plate cin which the grant was made by the Ahom King. This translation, it has been pointed out, was accepted by both sides. According to this translation the land and the. estate described "together with three Bhakats and 10 l,'aiks have been given for piety as Brahmottar to the godly Brahmin. Gadapani with .his own brothers making him a Medhi of Satsangi Satra. He will remain in devotion of God and will enjoy and occupy and continue to enioy and occupy together with Ill [1952lS.C.R. 513. religious purpose and that the defendants had no personal interest therein except as trustees for the management of the Satra; (2) A declaration that the defendants were bound to maintain the Satra with the income of the suit lands by observing the Dou! festival and the usual Nam-Kirtan; ( 3) For a declaration that the plaintiffs as Bhakats of the Satra were entitled to possess their own Basti and paddy lands and that they had a right of access to the use of the Satra for various religious purposes; ( 4) A claim for possession of the lands confined to the above reliefs. 500 SU-PREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 2 S.C.R. his own brothers from father to son, son's son etc. and will scatter Sravana-Kirtana-dhanna." It is contended on behalf of tho plain· tnfs that the grant was clearly described as Brahmottar and it w11s made to the Brahinin Gadapani with his own brothers and he wlis made Medhi of 'the Sat Sangi Satra. Medhi means a high priest. He and his descendants were to enjoy and occupy the property from generation to generation. Of course, it was laid down as a part of their duties that they should propagate Sravana·Kirtana· dhanna bot that did not conver1 th.e grant into Dharrnottar. As regards •tho! correct translation, we are unable to accept the contention that the translation iet out in the judgment of the High Court along with the original text does not represent the correct ##### translation. The learned Addi. Distt. Judge and Deka J, who delivered the judgment of the division Bench in the High Court, were fully familiar with the language and we find no reason to doubt the correctness of the translation appearing in the judgment of the High Court. Both the Addi. Distt. Judge and the High Court were more familiar with the establishment of Satras and the historical background in which such institutions came to be estab· lished · and were in a better position to interpret the tenns of the grant than ourselves. Moreover, their judgments were based on other evidence which was produced and it would not be right for us even if we 1ook a different view to depart from the practice of this Court not to interfere with the conclusions into which familiarity with the local Janguag.e, customs and enactments plays a vital part. Even otherwise we have not been persuade? to take the view that the grant was only a personal grant in favour of Gadapani Brahmin. The word Brahmottar was certainly used but mere use of tha•t word would not change the essential charac· ter of the grant. In this connection our attention has been invited to a decision of this Court in _libon Chandra Sarma Doloi'_ v. _A nandi Ram Kali ta and others(ol)._ In this case a question arose about certain grant made by Assam Rajas to the Bardeuries (temple officials) to enable them to render services to the Deitr!s installed in the temple. On certain alienations having been made, a suit was instituted on behalf of the temple that the alienations were invalid and unauthorised. The principal point Which was urged was that the High Court had come to a wrong conclusion that the lands in suit which were admittedly described as Brahmottar lands in the revenue records were transferable without any restriction. After going ill'to the history of lands described as ##### Nisf-Khirai in the revenue records ii was observed by this Court that a Nisf-Khierajdar was ordinarily a person whose lands were claimed by his ancestors revenue free on the ground that they w.:re g'tilntces· of the Assam Raja for some religious or charitable Y'Ut· (I) [ 1961) (3) S.C.R. 947. A B # c E F H A B ### c D , E F G HARENDRA _v._ KAL!DAS _(Grover,_ _J.)_ 5 01 pose. Reference was also made to the provisions of Regulation I of 1886 called "The Assam Land and Revenue Regulations" .. After referring to the relevant provisions it was stated that it could not be held that the lands in question were burdened with the special condition that they could be transferred only to Bardeuries and not to any strangers outside the group. It was; finally observed : "As the High Court has found, and that ls no longer in dispuie, these lands are described as Brahrnottar lands in revenue records and to the said lands and their holders the statutory provisions of the Regulation to which we have just referred applied, therefore, it is impossible fo escape the comcl'usion that by virtue of the relevant statutory provisions of the Regulation the lands must be deemed to be heritable and transferable without any resiriction" . .It is qui1e obvious tha'I the question involved in this case was quite· ##### different from the one under examination by us. It was not argued at any scage in the present case including the appeal before the High Court that bjy virtue of the provisiol!s and the other facts relied upon in the aforesaid judgment, the mere fact that the· lands were described as Brahrnottar would be the personal property of those in whose names they were shown in ·the revenue records. Nor has our attention teen drawn to any entries from the revenue records produced in the present case which would. show the exact and precise terms in which those entries had been made. Lastly it was contended that even in the plaint the lands were admitted to have been held under a Nisaf-Khiraj or Ni~pi-Khera_j Patta and that according to the entire history and other facts stated in _Jibon_ _Chandra_ _Sarma_ _Doloi's_ _case_ (supra), such a patta could. be held only in a personal capacity. The difficulty again is that no such contention was raised before the High Court or before any of the Courts below. We are unable in these circumstances· to either allow this point to be agitated or to enter into its discussion. In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs. ## s.c. Appeals dismissed·