Case: Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla Vs. Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And Hazrat Alikanpur &amp; Ors

2. Sometime prior to 1830, one Mani Ram, well-known during his life-time as a wrestler, purchased a groveland with trees standing thereon. Whether he purchased one such groveland and divided it into two, or purchased two such grovelands and amalgamated them into one is not quite certain. Along with this land he was possessed of other properties adjacent to the said groveland. It appears that being himself a wrestler and fond of that sport Mani Ram purchased the said groveland for setting up and maintaining an Akhara where wrestlers of both Hindu and Muslim communities could come for wrestling. Besides the income from the said groveland, Mani Ram spent large amounts for promoting wrestling and to that end made a number of disciples.3. He had by his first wife six sons and a seventh son, Mangali Prasad, a wrestler of repute, from his second wife, Rahas Kaur.By a deed of partition dated June 23, 1830 he divided all his properties into eight shares giving one share to each of his seven sons and retained the 8th share for himself and the said Rahas Kaur. This 8th share included the said groveland on which stood the said Akhara as also certain other structures. The Akhara ground was bounded by a compound wall with an archgate to enter into. It appears that with the object of attracting wrestlers he installed on the archgate an idol of Mahabirji, a Shiv Lingam over a small room which stood next to the said gate, and a tasweer of Hazrat Ali. The two idols and the tasweer were obviously intended to give a religious bias to the Akhara, the first two to attract Hindu wrestlers and the third to attract Muslim wrestlers. The said deed of partition stated with regard to the 1/8th share and the said groveland that none of his seven sons would have any interest or right in them as the "one-eighth (1/8th) share and the grove, which is a waqf property and which I, the executant, have taken for myself. I, the executant and my second wedded wife shall remain owner thereof till our lifetime". It would thus appear that even before 1830 Mani Ram had already dedicated the said groveland for the purposes of the said Akhara and that was why he referred to it as waqf property. Mani Ram managed the said grove land in the aforesaid manner using the income thereof for the said Akhara. On his death the property came under the management of his widow, the said Rahas Kaur. On May 12, 1862 Rahas Kaur made a will in which after reciting the partition deed of 1830 she stated as(Mani Ram) dedicated two groves - situate in Philkhana Bazar, which has Asthan of Mahadeoji and Mahabir and Akhara and tasweer of Hazrat Ali - The Akhara and Asthan - up to this day are continuing as heretofore, and Mangli Prasad, my son, is unparalleled in wrestling. In order that it may continue - I execute a will that (paper torn) shall be spent over it as mentioned in the will of my husband. The Akhara and Asthan shall continue aswill then provided that the management of the Akhara and the Asthan should remain with Mangli Prasad and authorised Mangli prasad to appoint managers after him from the issues of Mani Ram and thus the management should go on from generation to generation.4. From a deed of lease dated June 28, 1862, executed by one Mst. Tejia, it appears that the said groveland was given on lease to her at the annual rent of Rs.23 by Mangli Prasad. The deed of lease also described the said groveland as having "Asthan of Mahadeoji and Mahabir and Akhara and tasweer of Hazrat Ali" and as having been dedicated to them.5. In 1862, one Bansgopal filed suit No. 490 of 1862 against Mangli Prasad and others for partition and for 1/3rd share in the said groveland. Mangli Prasad filed a written statement therein explaining how the groveland was pruchased by Mani Ram from out of his own funds and how he had dedicated it and referred to the said partition between Mani Ram and his sons. He also described how after Mani Rams death in 1849, the property was administered first by Rahas Kaur and after her death under the directions of her said will by him. Mangli Prasad in this written statement denied that the plaintiff in that suit had any right or interest in the said groveland, the same having been dedicated by Mani Ram for the purposes aforesaid.6. It appears that after Mangli Prasads death his widow, Janki Kaur, entered into possession of the said property. From the judgment in First appeal No. 279 of 1901 of the High Court of Allahabad dated December 23, 1903 it would appear that Janki Kaur left a will in favour of one Kishan Sarup and on the latter claiming the property Mangli Prasads daughter, Sheodei Kaur, filed a suit for a declaration of her right of possession to the said property. That judgment has some bearing on the question as to the nature of the property in this appeal as it clearly stated that the groveland in question was an endowed property, and that therefore, Sheodei Kaur could not claim that property by inheritance, but was entitled to the possession thereof as the manager since Mangli Prasad had not appointed any one as such manager. By this judgment the High Court declared that "as regards the two grovelands and Akhara - we declare that the plaintiff is entitled to be the manager of the said property". From the description in the decree of the property declared by the High Court as the endowed property there can remain no room for doubt that the endowed property consisted of the two grovelands and the enclosure known as Baug-Akhara.7. The property came into possession of Ishwar Narain, the son of the said Sheodei Kaur, in 1906. In 1914 he applied to the Kanpur Municipality for permission to build a theatre in a part of the Baug-Akhara and in September 1915 he executed a mortgage to secure repayment of a loan of Rs.6,000/- he had borrowed to complete the said theatre. Though the Akhara and the Asthan continued to be maintained by him, it appears that he treated the endowed property as belonging to him. In or about 1937 the Improvement Trust of Kanpur acquired the whole of the property which consisted of the said two grovelands, Baug-Akhara and the structure standing thereon and the property lying outside and around them. The award of the Collector dated February 19, 1937 shows that for the entire property compensation was calculated at Rs. 94,934/-. Ishwar Narain, thereafter, filed a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Pending the reference, a compromise was entered into between the Improvement Trust and Ishwar Narain under which in consideration of the latter not pressing the reference the Improvement Trust agreed to sell to him the portion corresponding to the said endowed property for Rs. 25,000/-. In accordance with this compromise, the said land together with the Akhara, the Asthan, the said theatre and certain other structures were conveyed to Ishwar Narain who was paid Rs. 94,934/- less Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the rest of the acquired property. Ishwar Narain died in 1948 having prior thereto made his will dated November 11, 1947, claiming therein that on the death of his mother, the said Sheodei Kaur, he had become the absolute owner of the said property and bequeathed the said property to Balaji and Ram Chandra, the sons of his sister, Narayani Devi, with directions to them to maintain the said Akhara and the Asthan.8. The principal question which was agitated before the Trial Court was as to the existence of a valid trust and the nature of possession of Mani Ram during his lifetime and his successors thereafter. To the latter part of the question, the answer of the Trial Court was that possession of the property in question by Mani Ram and those who came into possession after him was that of managers or trustees. As to the first part of the question, the Trial Courtnext part of the issue is about the endowment being valid....It is true that Mani Ram Pande was not competent to make a dedication in favour of Hazrat Ali but he had not done so in this case. The various documents referred above do not prove that the dedication was made in favour of Hazrat Ali or even Mahadeoiji and Mahabirji. Wherever there is an allegation of the dedication it is mentioned that the Ahata in question is a dedicated property and there are "Asthana" of Mahadev Ji and tasweer of Hazrat Ali and also an Akhara. It means that the dedication was not made in favour of any juristic person such as Mahadev Ji or Mahabir Ji or even to the Akhara or Hazrat Ali. No dedication even in favour of Akhara could have been made as the Akhara was also not a juristic person. The intention of Mani Ram Pande, as appears from the partition deed, Ex. 6, was that the dedication was in favour of a trustee or manager, the objects of which was to maintain the Akhara and the worshipping of Mahabirji and Hazrat Ali by the wrestlers of the two communities, Hindus and Muslims. The main purpose of dedication was the maintenance of the Akhara which was meant for the wrestlers of both the communities".In this view the Trial Court decreed the suit and directed the appellants to hand over possession and pay Rs.23,000/- as mesne profits in addition to Rs. 1,100/- a month as further mesne profits for the period pending the suit.9. In appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the High Court took the view that though there was no deed of dedication available the evidence on record was clear that Mani Ram had dedicated the said property, that he and those who succeeded him right upto Ishwar Narain held the properties as trustees or managers, that the said judgment of the High Court of Allahabad of 1903 also held that the said Sheodei Kuar was to hold the property in the capacity of a manager, and lastly, that the dedication was in favour of the two idols of Shri Mahadeoji and Mahabirji. In this connection the High Court expressed itself in the followingmay be that establishing an Akhara is not a religious or a charitable purpose. But this was not the only object of the trust now in question. There was an Asthan in addition to the Akhara. Dedication of property for the benefit of an idol is recognized in Hindu law as religious object. Mr. V. P. Misra further contended that Mani Ram was not competent to create a trust for the benefit of Hazrat Ali. On this point, the learned Civil Judge observed that Mani Ram was not competent to make dedication in Hazrat Alis favour. But Hazrat Ali is not the sole plaintiff in this case. Sri Mahabirji, Sri Mahadeoji and Hazrat Ali have come to Court as co-plaintiffs. If the dedication in Hazrat Alis favour cannot be recognized, there should be no difficulty in treating the endowment as a trust for the benefit of Mahadeoji and Mahabirji. The decree passed by the Trial Court can well be treated as a decree in favour of Sri Mahadeoji and Sri Mahabirji only."

Reasoning:
11. So far as the first and the second contentions are concerned, we have no difficulty in rejecting them. The documents on record as also the evidence as to the conduct of Mani Ram and those who held the property after him clearly show that Mani Ram dedicated the groveland and not merely the trees standing thereon. The purchase of part of the said property after its acquisition was from out of the compensation received by Ishwar Narain and not out of his personal funds, so that if the trust was in law a valid one, the property purchased by him out of the trust funds would be stamped with the trust and he would in that event be holding that property as a trustee or manager and not as an owner.There being no deed of endowment, the intention of Mani Ram in settling the property in question has to be principally gathered from the said deed of partition and the said will of Rahas Kaur, the rest of the documents executed by Mangli Prasad and others being useful only in aid of the interpretation of that deed of partition and the said will. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Mani Ram, being an eminent wrestler and fond of that game, purchased out of his own money the said groveland for the purpose of setting up an Akhara thereon. The question then would be whether he settled that property upon trust, and if so, for what trust.14. As already seen, Mani Ram recorded in the said partition deed the fact of his having partitioned the property into eight shares, his having given one share to each of his seven sons and having retained the eighth share for himself and his second wife and the said groveland as waqf property. The deed, however, does not set out the purpose or purposes for which the said groveland was regarded by him as waqf property. But it does show that he regarded that property as already dedicated. The purposes for which the groveland was so dedicated are to be found in the said will of Rahas Kaur, wherein she has in clear terms stated that Mani Ram had dedicated the groveland "which has Asthan of Mahadeo Ji and Mahabir Ji and Akhara and tasweer of Hazrat Ali, that the Akhara and the Asthan were upto that date maintained and that they should continue as heretofore. The will thus provides a key to the mind of Mani Ram who, as aforesaid, had purchased the said property and set up thereon the said wrestling arena. Obviously, he was anxious that wrestlers of both Hindu and Muslim communities should take part in that Akhara. It is equally obvious that to attract wrestlers from both the communities he installed in that Akhara the tasweer of Hazrat Ali and the idols of Shri Mahadeo and Mahabir, the two patron deities of wrestling. Once those idols were put up in the Akhara, their worship had to be provided for, it is well known amongst Hindus that it is irreligious to let such idols remain unworshipped. It is not possible to know from the evidence as to where Hazrat Alis tasweer was installed, but it is clear from the evidence that the idol of Mahabirji was located at the top of the archgate which led into the Akhara and the Shiva Lingam was installed over a small room built next to the gate. Clearly, the purpose of installing the two idols and the tasweer was to enable the wrestlers to pay their homage and salutations to the patron deities of the game before entering into the wrestling arena. The dominant object of the dedication was thus the Akhara and the Asthan of God Shiva and Mahabir, spoken of in the will of Rahas Kaur, was only an adjunct to the Akhara. There is evidence, no doubt, to show that pooja and shringar of the two idols were performed. But that apparently was because the idols once installed could not be left unworshipped. On these facts we are inclined to take the view that the dominant object of the dedication was the Akhara and the said idols and the tasweer were installed only to attract persons of both the communities to the Akhara and to provide for them the facility for invoking the divine benefaction before they participated in wrestling. As laid down in Saraswathi Ammals case, 1954 SCR 277   = (AIR 1953 SC 491  ), it is on this footing that the validity or otherwise of the trust has to be considered.15. It must be made clear at very outset that although the will of Rahas Kaur provided that persons who are to manage the trust were to be in the first instance her son, Mangli Prasad, and later on those appointed by him from amongst the issues of Mani Ram, the trust was obviously not a private but a public trust in the sense that it was for the benefit of those who are devoted to the sport of wrestling irrespective of whether they are Hindus or Muslims. But the contention was that in spite of the trust being a public trust, it was not one recognised by Hindu Law as being a religious and/or a charitable one. As stated earlier, the fact that the Akhara ground had the two idols installed in it makes no difference as the dominant object of the dedication was the Akhara and not the worship of the idols or the tasweer of Hazrat Ali.It must be made clear at very outset that although the will of Rahas Kaur provided that persons who are to manage the trust were to be in the first instance her son, Mangli Prasad, and later on those appointed by him from amongst the issues of Mani Ram, the trust was obviously not a private but a public trust in the sense that it was for the benefit of those who are devoted to the sport of wrestling irrespective of whether they are Hindus or Muslims. But the contention was that in spite of the trust being a public trust, it was not one recognised by Hindu Law as being a religious and/or a charitable one. As stated earlier, the fact that the Akhara ground had the two idols installed in it makes no difference as the dominant object of the dedication was the Akhara and not the worship of the idols or the tasweer of Hazratdecisions above referred to thus lay down a distinction between cases where the object of the dedication was the promotions of games as part of the education of those who participate in them and cases where the object was promotion of games simpliciter, the former only having been upheld on the ground that such promotion or encouragement is part of the educational training and the latter not having been upheld.In the case of Cricket Association, Bengal, AIR 1959 Cal 296   though arrangements of cricket tournaments of both domestic and foreign teams were said to promote and foster love for a healthy game, Section 4 (3) (i) was held not to be applicable.23. On a reading of the relevant documents on record and the oral testimony led by the parties we are not in a position to agree with the High Court that the trust created by Mani Ram was a religious trust in favour of the two idols of Lord Shiva and Mahabirji. As aforesaid, our conclusion is that the dominant intention of the settlor was to set up and maintain an Akhara,the said two idols as also the tasweer of Hazrat Ali having been installed there only to attract wrestlers of the two communities.That being the position, reluctant though we are, particularly in view of the fact that the said Akhara has been maintained for nearly a century, we find it extremely difficult, in the absence of any authority, textual or by way of a precedent, to hold that the dedication in question was for either a religious or charitable purpose as recognised by Hindu Law.