Case: Mohsin Ali &amp; Ors Vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh

1. By a firman, dated October 25, 1934. Nawab Sir Hamidullah Khan, the then Ruler of Bhobal State, in appreciation of the long and distinguished services of Sir Liaqat Ali gave to the latter, in addition to the grant of pensions, the residential house in question as "inayat ataa". Sir Liaqat who was already residing in this house, continued therein till he died, issueless and widowless, in March 1947. One Syed Mohammed Ali who was the son of Sir Liaqats fathers sister also used to reside in this house with the deceased. After Sir Liaqats death. Syed Mohammed Ali continued in occupation of this house as one of the nine heirs of the deceased, till he was "forcibly and unlawfully" ejected in May 1947 by the then Government of Bhopal. Paying a "deaf-ear" to the repeated demands of Syed Mohammed Ali for restoration of possession, the Government "peristed in the act of trespass" and continued in illegal possession of the house. After his ouster, Syed Mohammed Ali also died sometime in 1947.2. On April 30, 1947, the Nawab of Bhopal signed the Agreement of Merger and the State of Bhopal was taken over by the Chief Commissioner on behalf of the Government of India on June 1, 1949. Thereafter, on November 1, 1956 the territory of the former Bhopal State became a part of the re-organized State of Madhya Pradesh.3. On August 21, 1957, after serving a notice under Section 80,Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs 1 to 3, who are the son, daughter and widow, respectively, of Syed Mohammed Ali, it instituted the suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh for recovery of possession of the house on the footing that under the firman, it had been gifted absolutely by the Nawab to Sir Liaqat Ali who died possessed of it as full owner and on the donees death, it was inherited by Syed Mohammed Ali who, in turn was succeeded by the plaintiffs. It was further pleaded that Syed Mohammed Ali was "forcibly and unlawfully" dispossessed by the Government in May 1947.4. The suit was resisted by the defendant State on the ground, inter alia, that the Rulers firman "did not confer absolute title on late Liaqat Ali", but only a life-interest in the house.5. The Additional District Judge who tried the suit found on a construction of the firman (Ex.P-1), that the suit house had been gifted by the Ruler to late Sir Liaqat Ali absolutely, and, in consequence, decreed the suit. On appeal, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh reversed that finding and held that "on a true construction of the Firman (Ex. P-1), the grantee, the late Sir Syed Liaqat Ali was given only an estate for life in the suit property, and the plaintiffs as his heirs had no right to inherit it as his property." In the result, the appeal was allowed and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed.6. On a certificate granted by the High Court under Article 133 (1)(a) of the Constitution read with Sections 109 and 110 of theCode of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs have now come in appeal to this Court.7. The main issue framed by the trial court was in these terms:"Was the house in dispute given by the Ruler to Shri Liaqat Ali deceased absolutely or for life only?"8. The decision of this issue turns on an interpretation of the Firman (Ext. P-1), dated October 24, 1934 whereby the Ruler gave this house to the deceased.9. The original Firman is in Urdu. As rendered into English by the courts below, it reads:"Honble Motamid-u-Sultan Nasirul-Mulk Syed Sir Liyaqat Ali""Looking into considerations with gratitude your valuable services and faithful sacrifices which you have rendered for more than 30 years and considering the economic condition of the State you have served without remuneration for the last 2 years, your application (for pension) is granted. You are granted permission to retire in lieu of your valuable services from 1 st October 1934. You should hand over charge of Mushir-ul-Muhami Rubkari Khas to Honourable Shoeb Qureshi.Besides that pension you are entitled to receive under the Pension Rules of the State Treasury, you are also entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 400/- as monthly pension from Treasury of Deodhi in lieu of valuable services of Deodhi Khasand you are (further) granted your residential house situated at Bara Mahal Shahiahanibad, as gift."10. The original of the crucial sentence, which has been underlined, reads:"Aur aapka sakoonti makan waqya Bara Mahal Shahjahanabad apko inayat ataa kiya jata hai-"11. The Firman was by order published in the Bhopal Government Gazette, dated 31-10-1934, Under the Heading Pension to Aali Mortabat Sir Syed Liaqat Ali Saheb. Rendered into English, its material part runs thus:"Now the said Honble again requests for grant of his previous application on account of rendering service for more than thirty years. Hence His Highness the Ruler of Bhopal Khuld-Allah-Mulkahum considering his valuable services and his faithful sacrifices that he had served without remuneration for the two years, taking into consideration the economic condition of the State. Considering (all his valuable services) with gratitude (His Highness the Ruler of State) grants him permission to retire from 1st November 1934and also grants him his residential house situated at Bar Shahjahanabad as gift.His Highness the Ruler of Bhopal State further orders that Honble Syed Sir Liyaqat Ali Saheb be paid Rs. 400/ - monthly pension from the Treasury of Deorhi Khas in respect of services of Deorhi Khas besides his regular pension under the Rules of the State Treasury for which he is entitled to receive from the Treasury of State".12. The original of the underlined sentence, in the Gazette Notification reads :"aur unko sakoonti makan waqya Bara Mahal Shahjahanabad inayat marhmat pharmate hain."

Court's reasoning:
17. This general rule is, however, capable of important relaxations in favour of the subject. If the intention of the Sovereign is obvious from the document which in precise, unequivocal terms defines the extent and nature of the benefit conferred, it must take, effect. No question of seeking extrinsic aid to its construction arises. If the grant is for valuable consideration it must be construed strictly in favour of the grantee, for the honor of the Sovereign and where two constructions are possible, one valid and the other void, that which is valid ought to be preferred, for the honour of the Sovereign, ought to be more regarded than the Sovereigns profit. Where, however, two interpretations may be given to the grant, both of which are good, that which is most favourable to the Crown is in many casesWe are not persuaded to accept the appellants contention that the Fireman conveys, in precise and unequivocal terms, full and absolute ownership of the suit house to the grantee. In our opinion, the language of the last sentence of the Fireman, which is the sheet-anchor of this contention, even by itself, does not indubitably and unequivocally indicate that the intention of the Ruler was to grant an absolute estate. The Firman is conspicuous by the non-employment of any words declaring that thenceforth the grantee would have a heritable estate in the house or that the grantor had transferred all his rights in the property, absolutely in favour of the grantee. There is no use of such words the grant would take effect as "nasalandar-nasalan", "from generation to generation" "warsan, kaiam u qaman" "to grantee and his heirs" etc. pointing towards the creation of a heritable estate. Even the use of such terms by itself has been held to be an inconclusive indication of the grantors intention to confer absolute, heritable rights.It is not necessary to multiply authorities with regard to the construction of such customary terms which could possibly be indicative of the grantors intention to make a heritable grant, because the Firman Ex. P-1, is bereft of all such terms. It will be sufficient to say that the language of the Fireman does not in clear and unambiguous terms express an intention to create an absolute estate in favour of the grantee and his heirs. The Firman has therefore to be construed in accordance with the well-established rule of construction applicable to Sovereign grants.26. Another cardinal canon of interpretation to be borne in mind is that in order to ascertain the real intention of the grantor, the Firman has to be read as a whole. It will not be correct - as the appellants want us to do - to dissect the Fireman into three watertight compartments or to read the last sentence of the Fireman out of the context. It is also permissible to consider the surrounding circumstances and the occasion on which this grant was made as legitimate aids to construction of theIn short, all the threefold benefits granted under this Fireman are off-spring of the same genus. The language of the Fireman relating directly to the grant in question therefore takes its colour from the preceding parts of the Fireman relating to the pensionary benefits conferred on the grantee for life. Thus if the crucial words quoted above are construed in the context of the akin grants, and - according to the general tenor of the Fireman as a whole, it becomes clear that the intention of the Ruler was to grant only a right of residence limited to the lifetime of the grantee - and not an absolute estate in the house.There is yet another circumstances which points towards the same conclusion. It is that at the time of the grant the grantee was already residing in the suit house. In this context, the word "sakoonti (residential) in the last part of the Firman used in association with makan(house) assumes significance. It suggests that the intention of the grantor was to convey to the grantee no more than a right of residence in the house which the latter was already enjoying.30. The letter Ex. P-3 written by the Chief Engineer on 29-6-1938, is of hardly any assistance in construing the grant made three or four years earlier. It could not be treated as contemporaneous conduct of the grantor or his agent, which could legitimately be taken into consideration in construing theneed only say that even after excluding this circumstance, there remains sufficient and sound foundation in the language of the Firman and contemporaneous surrounding circumstances, including the common genus, the same occasion and purpose of the three seeded grant, to hold that the Ruler had conferred only a limited estate in the suit property for the lifetime of the grantee.On parity of reasoning, it is doubtful whetherthe fact of eviction of Syed Mohammed Ali from the suit house, about two months after the death of the grantee and about 15 years after the grant, could justifiably be called in aid as a "surrounding circumstances" to interpret the Fireman datedmay, however, say in passing that even according to the observations of the Privy Council relied upon by the Counsel, creation of an interest limited in point of time, in the usufruct of the property is not necessarily repugnant to Muslim Law.There is no foundation for the plea either in the pleadings or in the issues. We therefore do not allow it to be raised for the first time in this Court.The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants: that the grant in question was a hiba made in accordance with Mohammedan Law by one Muslim to another, has been stated only to be rejected. To all intents and purposes, it was a grant made by an absolute Ruler to his subject who had rendered long meritorious services, on the eve of his retirement. Reference to Muslim law is therefore misconceived. Wemay, however, say in passing that even according to the observations of the Privy Council relied upon by the Counsel, creation of an interest limited in point of time, in the usufruct of the property is not necessarily repugnant to Muslim Law.The surrounding circumstances also confirm the interpretation adopted by us. The first such circumstance was that at the time of the grant, the grantee had no issue, nor any near relation. Indeed, he died widowless and issueless. In this context, coupled with the omission of any words such as to "grantee and his heirs orindicating the grant to be heritable, it would be reasonable to hold that the grant was intended to be for life only.