KUMAR PASHUPATI NATH MULLAH (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [1974] 3 S.C.R. 536 · Decided: 05-03-1974 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW · Disposal: Case Allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

536 
KUMARPASHUPATINATHMULLAH (DEAD)BY L. RS. 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL 
March 5, 1974 
(K. K. MATHEW AND A. ALAGIRISWAMl, 1J.J 
A 
West Bengal Estate Acq,,i.~ition .Act, 1953, s. SA-Scope of. 
B 
Under s. ·SA, West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953, if it was found after 
an enquiry that a transfer made after May S, 1953, was not bonafidc, the transfer 
shall stand cancelled. Under SA (7). a transfer shall be held to be not bonafide 
if it was made principally or partially with the object of increasing the amount of 
land which a person may reta~n, or with the object of increasing the amount of 
compensation payable. Under s. 6, an intermediary, holding land under a trust 
may retain such land; and under s. 16, in determining the net income of an inter. 
mediary, for purposes of determining the compensation payable to him, one of the 
C 
items to be deducted from the gross income is the amount payable by the 
intermedi~ 
afY, to a re1igious or charitable trust, out Of the income of the estate. 
In 1928, a charge had been created upon an estate for the maiiltenance and 
seva puja of a family deity and for the performance of certain specified charitable 
purposes. In October 1953, the appellant, whO had inherited a half share of the estate 
executed a document whereby a half share in his share of the estate was set apart 
exclusively for the purpose for which the charge had been created earlier and the 
·rest of the property was to be treated as absolutely free and absolved from the 
D 
claims in respect of the religious and charitable purposes. The appellant appointed 
him self as a trustee in respect of the property set apart for the religious and 
charitable purposes. He transferred his interest in the remaining portif>n of the 
estate to bis son and wife. The Settlement Officer held, under the Act, that 
tlie 1953-document executed by the appellant was not bonafi.de. His appeal, and 
petition in the High Court, failed 
Allowing the appeal to this Court, and remanding the matter to ihe High Court 
for disposal afresh, 
E 
HELD : (1) Jf the substance of the transaction of 1953 by which properties 
are endowed in favour of the deity is looked into there is no reason why Jt should 
not be called a girt. Therefore, the transaction was a transfer within the meaning 
of the Act [539 B-C)~ 
Chan1pa Bibi v. Panchira1n Nallata AIR 1963 
Cal. '51 approved. 
(2) 'fhe High Court ;lnd the authorities below erred in holding thnt the transfer 
F 
was not bonafide. 
(a) The Settlement Officer found that the total expenditure on seva and charitable 
purposes was Rs. 30,000 and appellant's share therein would be Rs. J 5,000/-. It 
was also found that the income of the land absolutely transferred for the religiou~ 
and charitable purposes under the deed of 1953, is Rs. 23,000(-. But ror the execution 
of the document the appellant would have been .in possession of the whole of his 
share of the estate with only a charge amounting to Rs. 15,000/-. But the result 
of the document was that land yielding a larger incoine was transferred absolutely 
G 
to the deity the Settlement Officer should therefore, have given his reason as to how 
he arrived at the conclusion that the transfer would enable the appellant to retain 
a lar_gcr extent of land or entitle him to a larger amount of compensation. The 
Special Judge in appeal and the High Court did not go into the question at all. 
[539F-H, 5408] 
(b) Whether the appellant was entitled to free a portion of the estate from the 
charge and confine the charge to only a portion Of the estate does not affect the 
question whether the transfer was bonafidl? in terms of the Act. 
[539H] 
H 
(c) Merely because he transferred 'the remaining~ portion to his son and wife 
could not establish want of bona tides. [539HJ 
.. 
P. N· MULLAH v. WEST BENGAL (A.lagiriswami, J.) 
537 
A 
(3) No question under s. 6(1) (i) of the Act arises on the facts of this case. 
(S40B-C] 
. 
. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Far/u/ Rabbi Pradhan v. State of Wm Ii<n1a/ (136S] 3 SCR 307, foollwed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUR.ISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1838 of 1967. 
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
23rd May, 1967 of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 1119 of 
1962. 
Purshottam Chatterjee and Ganpat Rai for the appellant, 
P. K. Chakrabarty and G. S. Chatterjee for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIR.ISWAMI, J. Gobinda Prosad Pandit, the founder of the 
Scarsole Raj Estate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.