MOHSIN ALI & ORS. versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1975] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 22-04-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

r 240 
A 
MOHSIN ALI & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
April 22, 1975 
B 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER, R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA ]J.J 
Sovereign grants-Construction of-Surrounding circrunstances 
as aid of 
construction-Occasion of grant as aid of constn1ction. 
By Firman of 1934, the then ruler of Bhopal in appreciation of Jong and 
distinguished service of Sir Liaqat Ali gave him, in addition to the grant of 
pension,- the residential house in question and a sum of Rs. 400 /- per month 
C 
out of the Privy Purse of the Ruler. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Liaqat Ali died in March 1947 without Jeaving any issue or widow. 
In 
May, 1947, Syed Mohammed Ali, an heir .of Liaqat Ali, who was n;:siding in 
the said house was· forcibly ejected by the Government of Bhopal. 
In 1957, 
the present appellants being the heirs of Syed Mohammed Ali filed the pre-
sent suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh for the recovery of the posses-
sion o~ this house on the ground that the Firman gifted the house abso-
lutely to Liaqat Ali and that they were entitled to inherit the house. The suit 
was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the ruler's Firman did not 
confef absolute title on Liaqat Ali, but only a life interest in the house. The 
Firman inter-alia stated "and you are granted your residential house situated 
at Bara Mahal Shahjahanabad as a gift." The Trial Court decreed the suit 
on the ground that the suit house was gifted by the ruler to Liaqat Ali absolu-
tely. 
The High Court on appeai reversed the finding and held that on a 
true construction of the Firman Liaqat Ali was given only a life estate. On 
appeal to this Court, it v.·as contended by the appeJlants :-
1. The last sentence of the Firman declares in unambiguous terrms that 
the grant of the house is an out and out gift. 
2. Since the granter and the grantee are Muslims, the gift would under 
Mohammedan Law have the effect of conveying an absolute heritable 
estate. 
3. In a letter 
addressed by thr Chief Engineer and Secretary to 
the 
P.\V.D., Bhopal, issued in the year 1938, it was mentioned that the 
building in question was in the 
possession and ownership of this 
Liaqat Ali. 
Jt was contended by the respondents 
1. The grant of the house is not to be disassociated from the penslonary 
grants. 
2. The Firman repTesents a grant made by an absolute ruler in fa\1our 
of his subjt:L:t a1Jd wa~ not a hiba n1ade bv CJne Muslim to another 
lvfuslim under Mohammedan Law. 
3. The grant being a sovereign grant has to be construed strictly against 
the guarantee and imperfection in the language of the Firman had 
to be resolved in favour of the Government by reading it as a whole 
in the light of the surrounding circumstances. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : In case of sovereign grants, \vhere two interpretations are possible, 
that V.'hich is mo~t favourable to the sovereign is to be· pri~ferred. [244B-CJ 
HELD FURTHER--The Firman does not convey in precfre and unequi_vocal 
terms full and absolute ownership of the suit house to the grantee. The Firman 
does not use the word like heritable estate or that the grant would take effect 
from generation to generation or grant to the grantee and his heirs. 
[246FJ 
.. 
' -
I 
-
• 
- . 
\ 
MOHSIN ALI v. M.P. STATE (Sarkaria; !.) 
24t 
fl.eld further-The Firman has to be read as. a \Vhole. 
It cannot be dis-
A 
sected into three water-tight compartments. It is permissible to consider the 
surrounding circumstances and the occasion on which this grant was made as 
legitimate aids to .construction of the Firman. The Firman confers three-fold 
benefits; pensiQn, Rs. 400!- per month and beneficial interest in the residential 
house. The object of conferring these benefits was the same, namely, to secure 
to the retiring servant a handsome maintenance and comfortable residence for 
the rest of his life. The surrounding circumstances, namely, the grantee had no 
issue nor ony near relation and was already residing at the suit house, also 
B' 
c.:infirm thisi interpretation. [246G, 247A-B]. 
fIELD FURTIIER-The grant is not a hiba 
made. in 
accordance 
with 
ivtohan1n1eCan Law. It was a grant ma.de by an absolute ruler to his subject. 
[?.48D-E] . 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 166 of 1968. 
From the. judgment a11d decree dated 5th September, 1962 of 
the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No. 1 of 1956. 
Hardaya/ Hardy and S. S. Hussain, for the appellants. 
c 
'> 
Ram Panjwani, H. S. Parihar and f. N. Shroff
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.