Case: Harendra Nath Bhattacharya &amp; Ors Vs. Kaliram Das--Dead By L. Rs

513 = (AIR 1952 SC 143 )).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 maintainability of the suit.12. On the second point our attention has been invited to the translation of the Copper Plate on 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 Paiks 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 enjoy and occupy together with his own brothers from father to son, sons son etc. and will scatter sravana-kirtana-dharma". It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs that the grant was clearly described as Brahmottar and it was made to the Brahmin Gadapani with his own brothers and he was made Medhi of the 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-dharma but that did not convert the grant into Dharmottar.13. As regards the correct translation, we are unable to accept the contention that the translation set out in the judgment of the High Court along with the original text does not represent the correct translation. The learned Addl. Dist. 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 reasons to doubt the correctness of the translation appearing in the judgment of the High Court. Both the Addl. Dist. Judge and the High Court were more familiar with the establishment of Satras and the historical background in which such institutions came to be established and were in a better position to interpret the terms 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 took a different view to depart from the practice of this court not to interfere with the conclusions into which familiarity with the local language, customs and enactments plays a vital part. Even otherwise we have not been persuaded 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 that word would not change the essential character of the grant. In this connection our attention has been invited to a decision of this Court in Jibon Chandra Sarma Doloi v. Anandi Ram Kalita, (1961) 3 SCR 947 = (AIR 1961 SC 1309 ). 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 Deities 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 into the history of lands described as Nisf-Kheraj in the revenue records it was observed by this Court that a Nisf-Kherajdar was ordinarily a person whose lands were claimed by his ancestors revenue free on the ground that they were grantees of the Assam Rajas for some religious or charitable purpose. Reference was also made to the provisions of Regulation 1 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 is no longer in dispute, these lands are described as Brahmottar 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 to escape the conclusion that by virtue of the relevant statutory provisions of the Regulation the lands must be deemed to be heritable and transferable without any restriction". It is quite obvious that the question involved in this case was quite different from the one under examination by us. It was not argued at any stage in the present case including the appeal before the High Court that by virtue of the provisions and the other facts relied upon in the aforesaid judgment, the mere fact that the lands were described as Brahmottar would be the personal property of those in whose names they were shown in the revenue records. Nor has our attention been 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."14. Lastly it was contended that even in the plaint the lands were admitted to have been held under a Nisaf Khiraj or Nispi-Kheraj patta and that according to the entire history and other facts stated in Jibon Chandra Sarma Dolois case, (1961) 3 SCR 947 = (AIR 1961 SC 1309 ) (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 Court below.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. As regards the correct translation, we are unable to accept the contention that the translation set out in the judgment of the High Court along with the original text does not represent the correct translation. The learned Addl. Dist. 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 reasons to doubt the correctness of the translation appearing in the judgment of the High Court. Both the Addl. Dist. Judge and the High Court were more familiar with the establishment of Satras and the historical background in which such institutions came to be established and were in a better position to interpret the terms 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 took a different view to depart from the practice of this court not to interfere with the conclusions into which familiarity with the local language, customs and enactments plays a vital part. Even otherwise we have not been persuaded 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 that word would not change the essential character of the grant. In this connection our attention has been invited to a decision of this Court in Jibon Chandra Sarma Doloi v. Anandi Ram Kalita, (1961) 3 SCR 947   = (AIR 1961 SC 1309  ). 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 Deities 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 into the history of lands described as Nisf-Kheraj in the revenue records it was observed by this Court that a Nisf-Kherajdar was ordinarily a person whose lands were claimed by his ancestors revenue free on the ground that they were grantees of the Assam Rajas for some religious or charitable purpose. Reference was also made to the provisions of Regulation 1 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 finallythe High Court has found, and that is no longer in dispute, these lands are described as Brahmottar 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 to escape the conclusion that by virtue of the relevant statutory provisions of the Regulation the lands must be deemed to be heritable and transferable without any restriction". It is quite obvious that the question involved in this case was quite different from the one under examination by us. It was not argued at any stage in the present case including the appeal before the High Court that by virtue of the provisions and the other facts relied upon in the aforesaid judgment, the mere fact that the lands were described as Brahmottar would be the personal property of those in whose names they were shown in the revenue records. Nor has our attention been 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.