HARENDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA & ORS. versus KALIRAM DAS-DEAD BY L.RS.

Citation: [1972] 2 S.C.R. 492 · Decided: 22-11-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 pre-
British 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 men-
tioned 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 en-
titled 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 exis-
tence 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 declara-
tions which were sought could not therefore attract s. 92 of the Civil Pro-
cedure 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 trans-
lation 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 th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.