JIBON CHANDRA SARMA DOLOI versus ANANDI RAM KALITA AND OTHERS

Citation: [1961] 3 S.C.R. 947 · Decided: 23-02-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
' 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
947 
(3) The box may be op~ned once in a month or 
oftener as desired by the pujaris but not more than 
once in a week. 
(4) The amount found in the box may be noted 
by the management; the whole of it should be 
handed over to the chosen representative of the 
pujaris on behalf of all the pujaris in case the ex. 
penditure for dhoop, deep and neivedya for the period 
prior to the opening has been met by the pujaris. 
In case however sucli expenditure has been met by 
the management, the balance after deducting such 
expenses, shall be immediately paid to the chosen 
representative of the pujaris on behalf of them all. 
The last provision has been made to make it clear 
that the management will not t:tke away the money 
but immediately give it to the representative of the 
pujaris for distribution among them. The provisions 
of the Public Trusts Act will be satisfied. in that the 
management will be in a position to know how much 
has gone to the pujaris including the amount spent 
on dhoop, deep and neivedya. 
This provision will also 
take away any objection about there being interference 
with the private rights of the pujaris under the agree. 
ment of 1872. 
We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order 
of the High Court and restore the revised scheme 
subject to the modifications suggested by us above. 
The Districi Judge will see that these modifications 
are embodied in the revised scheme. 
In the circum-
stances of the case we order parties to bear their own 
costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
JIBON CHANDRA SARMA DOLOI 
v. 
AN ANDI RAM KALITA AND OTHERS. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Brahmollar land-If alienable-Burden of proof-Assam Land 
and Revenue Regulation, I886 (Reg. I of z886), ss. 3(g), B(r)(a), 9. 
The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit alleging that the lands in 
•uit were unauthorisedly transferred to the \)redecessors in mle 
l?t 
I96I 
Raje Anandrao 
v. 
Shamrao 
wa.nchoo J. 
February a3. 
SUPRE.\fE COURT REPORTS 
[1961] 
r96r 
of the respondents. His contention was that the lands were 
granted to the Bardeuries (officials) of a certain ancient temple in 
Jibon Chandrn 
Assam in order to enable them to render service to the deities 
Sarma Dotoi 
installed in the temple and as such the lands were inalienable to 
v. 
stran~ers other than the Bardeuries. 
AnandiRain f\·alita 
Held, that in view of the history of land tenure in Assam 
and by virtue of the relevant statutory provisions of Assam Land 
and Re,•enue Regulation (Reg. I of 18Sb) the lands mu>t be 
deemed to be heritable and transferable without any restriction. 
The transferor Bardeuries, who held the lands described as brah-
mottar lands in revenue records, fell under s. S(r)(a) and becam<• 
"land holders" under s. 3(g) of the Regulation and consequently 
s. g applied to them statutorily recognising their rights in the 
lands to be permanent, heritable and transferable. 
To prove the plaintiff-appellant's contention that the lands 
could be alienated only to a specified class of persons, the onus 
was on the appellant and not on the respondents to prove the 
contrary. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 
105 and 106 of 1957. 
Appeals from the judgment and 
decree dated 
April 8, 1954, of the Assam High Court in Appeal 
from Appellate Decree Nos. 41 and 54 of 1951. 
L. K. Jha and D. N. Mukherjee, for the appellant. 
N aunit Lal, for respondents Nos. 1 to 12. 
1961. February 23. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Gajendragadkar ]· 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-These two 
appeals arise 
from a suit instituted by the appellant in the Court of 
the Special Subordinate Judge, Assam Valley Districts, 
in which he claimed a declaration that the sale deeds 
of lands described in detail in the various Schedules 
attached to the plaint were void and for possession of 
the litnds covered by the said sale deeds. His case 
was that Madhab Temple at Hajo is a ver:' ancient 
temple and the Assam Rajahs had granted lands to the 
Bardeuries (temple officials) to enable them to render 
service to the deities installed in J;he said temple. The 
lands thus granted to the temple officials were endowed 
lands and the same had been burdened with service to 
the temple ; in other words, the grantees were entitled 
to enjoy the lands on condition that they rendered the 
...-
~ 
requisite service to the temple. 
As a c_orollary of th\l 
• • 
3 8.C.R. 
SUPREME COUHT ltEPOR'l'8 
949 
burden imposed on 

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