Case: Ramkishore Lal Vs. Kamal Narain

1. There exists at Raipur in Madhya Pradesh an old Math by the name of Dudhadhari Math within which is a temple where the idols of Shri Ramchandra, Sita, Laxman, Bharat, Satrughan and Hanumanji have been worshipped for very many years. For the expenses of the worship of the deities and for the upkeep of the temple, one village by the name of Hirmi was dedicated by Dinanath Sao, a wealthy inhabitant of the locality. The main controversy in the present litigation is whether another village of the name of Telibandha which also belonged to Dinanath was dedicated absolutely to the temple either by Dinanath Sao himself or later on by his descendants.2. The two appellants, both descendants of Dinanath Sao brought the present suit under S. 92 of theCode of Civil Procedure. 1908 for removal of the respondent Kamal Narayan, another descendant of Dinanath Sao, from the office of trustee of the God Shri Ramchandraji Swami for the village of Telibandha and for accounts. The appellants 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 uptill that time living jointly, all the cosharers 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; Keshorarn 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 Prasads four sons, Ram Saran Lal, Ramhirde, Ram Krishna and Ramanuj, representing Sarjoo Prasads Branch and the other five grandsons of Dinanath. The first appellant Ram Kishore is the son of Nand Kishore Sao, while the second appellant, Ramanuj, is Sarjoo Prasads son. The respondent is the son of Ram Saran Lal.4. By the award of 1896, it is the plaintiffs case, Ram Saran Lal was not given any proprietary interest in the village Telibandha but was merely made the Manager on behalf of the deities for this property on Ram Saran Lals death in 1930, Kamal Narayan, his son, became the trustee. According to the plaintiffs, the temple was a public temple and the trust a public trust. The plaintiffs allege that Kamal Narayan committed several breaches of trust by the sale of certain lands of Mouza Telibandha for the sum of Rs. 1,06,774/l/- and in other ways. The plaintiffs first approached the Court of the Additional District Judge, Raipur with a petition under S. 3 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act for directions on Kamal Narayan as provided in that section. Directions were accordingly issued by the Additional District Judge; but with this the respondent did not comply. It was then that the present suit was brought by the plaintiffs without the previous consent of the Advocate-General as is permitted by S. 6 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act. The plaintiffs have prayed for a declaration that Telibandha village was held by the defendant in trust for Shri Ramchandra of the Dudhadhari Math and that he had committed breaches of such trust, for his removal from the position of a trustee and for appointment of the first plaintiff in his place; for an order on him to render accounts since 1936 and to deposit Rs. 1,06,774/1/- which he got as sale proceeds.5. The defendant denied that Telibandha was ever dedicated. As regards the Award of 1896 his plea was that it did not express accurately the decision of the Arbitrators and that, in any case, it was superseded by the Award of Mr. Bagchi on May 14,1898, which was accepted by all the co-sharers as the actual settlement of their own and on the basis of which a suit brought to challenge the validity of the earlier award was dismissed as compromised. The defendants case is that there was no trust, either express or constructive created at any time by any one in respect of Telibandha village; that neither he nor his father was trustee in respect of this village and there was no breach of trust by him. To explain his possession of the village the defendant referred to a partition in 1901 between Sarjoo Prasads four sons, on the one hand, and Jamuna Prasad on the other, at which, it was said, that Telibandha fell to the share of Sarjoo Prasads four sons. Thereafter in 1913, there was a further partition between Sarjoo Prasads four sons and the defendant at which Telibandha was allotted to defendants 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 Ramchandra temple, for which the trust was created, was a public institution. The Court found that the defendant was the trustee of this public trust, and had committed breaches of trust by transferring trust properties and appropriating, its proceeds and finally by his express repudiation of this trust and was therefore liable to be removed. Accordingly, it passed a decree declaring that defendant No. 1 had committed breaches of trust as a trustee of the village Telibandha for the temple of Shri Ramchandra Swamy and removing the defendant from the office of the trustee. By the decree the Court also directed the defendant to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,06,774/1/- in Court. The first plaintiff Ram Kishore Lal was appointed the trustee in place of the defendant. It was also ordered that a Commissioner would be appointed later on to enquire into the alienations made by the defendant and to take accounts of the trust from the year 1936.7. On appeal by the defendant, the High Court of Judicature at Nagpur has set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and ordered the dismissal of the suit. The High Court was of opinion that the dedication of the village Telibandha had not been proved. The High Court agreed with the Trial Court that dedication by Dinanath Sao himself, by a Patha in 1857 as alleged in the plaint had not been established. but disagreeing with the Trial Court, it held that there was no absolute dedication of the village for the purpose of the temple by the Panch Faisla Award of 1896 and no trust was created thereby. on a construction of this document the learned Judges of the High Court held that it did not show more than a partial dedication of the village as distinguished from an absolute dedication. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered the suit to be dismissed without going into the other questions as regards the character of the temple or whether the defendant had committed breaches of trust.8. Against this decision of the High Court the present appeal was filed by the plaintiffs on a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 133 (1) (b) of the Constitution.

Reasoning:
12. The golden rule of construction, it has been said, is to ascertain the intention of the parties to the instrument after considering all the words, in their ordinary, natural sense. To ascertain this intention the Court has to consider the relevant portion of the document as a whole and also to take into account the circumstances under which the particular words were used. Very often the status and the training of the parties using the words have to be taken into consideration. It has to be borne in mind that very many words are used in more than one sense and that sense differs in different circumstances. Again, even where a particular word has to a trained conveyancer a clear and definite significance and one can be sure about the sense in which such conveyancer would use it, it may not be reasonable and proper to give the same strict interpretation of the word when used by one who is not so equally skilled in the art of conveyancing. Sometimes it happens in the case of documents as regards disposition of properties, whether they are testamentary or non-testamentary instruments, that there is a clear conflict between what is said in one part of the document and in another. A familiar instance of this is where in an earlier part of the document some property is given absolutely to one person but later on, other directions about the same property are given which conflict with and 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 Mohd. Kamgar Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deo, (1960) 3 SCR 604     at p. 611: (AIR 1960 SC 953   at p. 957)). It is clear, however, that an attempt should always be made to read the two parts of the document harmoniously, if possible; it is only when this is not possible, e.g. where an absolute title is given in clear and unambiguous terms and the later provisions trench on the same, that the later provisions have to beheld to bedo not think so. The question as to the meaning to be attached to the word "malik" (from which the word Milkiyat has been derived) and "Milkiyat" have often been considered by the courts. A consideration of the pronouncements of the Privy Council on this question leaves no doubt that while ordinarily an intention to give an absolute and full ownership is expressed by the words "Malik" or "Milkiyat" by saying that somebody is to be the malik or is to have the Milkiyat, this is not invariably so.Remembering therefore that the use of words "Kul haq haquq samet Milkiyat" in the opening clause of this Panch Faisla raises presumption that absolute interest was given thereby to Ramsaranlal, we have also to remember that this is merely a presumption which can well be displaced by what follows in the same document as regards this very property.19. When all these different provisions are considered it appears to us to be clear beyond any shadow of doubt that the intention was not to make Ramsaranlal the absolute owner of the village but to 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 Ku1 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 cosharer may carry it on and for this such cosharer shall take the Mouza Telibandha into his possession. The document then proceeds to say that none of the co-sharers and Ramsararlal had any right over the village. Then follows the prohibition againstprovision has to be considered, however, along with all other clauses and it would not, in our opinion, be right to take the indication of the words "from the profits and income" as outweighing or neutralising" the numerous other provisions which point to an intention that Ramsaran Lal would not have the absolute ownership of the village. As has been mentioned earlier the words "from the profits and income of mouza Telibandha" in the translation stand for "Telibandha ke munafa wo amdani se" of the original. It is not correct to say that these words as used in the original necessarily mean "from the profits and income of Mouza Telibandha" The words may equally well be translated as "with the profits and income of mouza Telibandha." It is worth noticing that the plaintiffs witness Mathura Rrasad stated in answer to a question from the Court: "At that time there was no question as to what should be done with thesavings from the income of the village Telibandha, after meeting the requirements of the temple, because the income those days was not much while the expenses which used to be incurred on the temple were far in excess of the income from the village." The correctness of this statement was not challenged in cross-examination. It appears clear to us that by the use of the words "at that time" the witness meant "the time of the partition in 1896". In using tthe words "Mouza Telibandha ke munafa wo amdani se" it is more than likely therefore that the Panchas wanted to say that the purposes mentioned will be carried out with the income and profits and did not expect any surplus to behave therefore no hesitation in holding on a construction of paragraph 2 of the Panch Faisla that by this Award Telibandha village was dedicated absolutely to the temple of Shri Ramchandra Swamy and Ramsaranlal was given possession of it as the manager and trustee of thesee no, force in this contention. It has to be noticed that the 1896, award was not set aside by the Court and the suit was dismissed. The mere fact that the suit is stated to be dismissed as compromised and the compromise appears to have been in accordance with Mr. Bagchis award, does not in law amount to the setting aside of the prior award. We are inclined to agree with the contention of the learned Attorney-General that Mr. Bagchis award gives the property to Ramsaran Lal absolutely with only a charge on the property for the expenses of the temple and did not make an absolute dedication of the village to the temple. We are of opinion however that Mr. Bagchis award can have no legal effect in respect of the dedication already made. Once an absolute dedication of the property had been made in December 1896 in favour of Shri Ramchandra Swamy temple the former owners of the property had no legal authority to go behind thatanswer to this question must be in 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 whatever may be unnecessary and improper". on a reasonable interpretation of those 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 Bagchis 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 Telibandha in the partition the Panchas caused the same to be given to Ramsaran Lal and his brothers." It is true that he added the words "I too by means of this award cause the same to be given to them" and then gave certain directions. Quite clearly, therefore, he proceeded on the basis that the award was a good and valid award. We are therefore clearly of opinion that the validity and force of the dedication made by the Panch Faisla has not in any way been affected by the Bagchi Award.It is equally clear that the way Ram Saran Lal or after him Kamal Narayan dealt with this village Telibandha or its income can in no way affect the force or validity of the absolute nature of the dedication. The fact, therefore, that Ramsaran Lal used to credit the income from Telibandha to the Gharu Khata which was maintained for the general expenses of the family or that he made certain alienations of the property cannot change the absolute dedication into a partial dedication. It may well be that Ramsaran Lal was himself led by the terms of the Bagchi Award into thinking that the property belonged to the family with only a charge on it for the temple. Whether or not this was so or his conduct was due to deliberate dereliction of duty is really irrelevant for our present purpose.As the High Court rightly pointed out the course of conduct of the parties is of no relevance for the construction of a document which is itself unambiguously shows an absolute dedication of the village to Shri Ramchandra Swamy temple, we think it unnecessary to examine the oral or documentary evidence as to how the property or the income of Telibandha was dealt with.25. Our conclusion therefore is that High Courts decision that the plaintiffs case of absolute dedication of Telibandha in favour of Shri Ramchandra Swamy has not been established is not correct and the High Courts order based on that view that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed, must be set aside. In view of its decision that absolute dedication had not been proved, the High Court did not consider it necessary to decide the several other issues which had been framed in the suit and without deciding which the suit cannot be properly disposed of.