PT. RAM CHANDRA SHUKLA versus SHREE MAHADEOJI, MAHABIRJI AND HAZRAT ALI KANPUR & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 809 · Decided: 15-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
809 
PT. RAM CHANDRA SHUKLA 
v. 
SHREE MAHADEOJI, MAHABIRJI AND HAZRAT ALI 
KANPUR & ORS. 
October 15, 1969 
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND J. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Hindu Law-Propert<J dedicated for promotion of the sport of wrestl-
i11g whether constitutes a valid trust under Hindu Law--Such 
property 
along with C'ther 
1property acquired under Land Acquisition Act., 1894--
Coinpromise during reference proceediiigs-Endowed property purchased 
C 
by manager and price adjusted against total compensation-Whether on 
. .,·ucli purchast! property loses i'ts chara::ter as trust property. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
One Mani Ram, a wrestler, owned certain properties including a grove-
land. In the groveland he maintained an Akhara or wrestling ground. 
He spent the income from the groveland as well as his other income for 
the promotion of wrestling. On the archiate of the Akhara was installed an 
idol of mahabirji and over a small room nearlJy a Shiv Lingam was in!tal-
led. In order to attract Muslim wrestlers a tasweer of Hazrat Ali was also 
placed in the Akhara. In 1830 Mani Ram partitioned his properties. He 
took a one eighth share including the said groveland for himself and wife. 
In the partition deed the said groveland was described as a wakf. Mtcr 
Mani Ram··s death his wife entered into possession of bis property and conti-
nued to maintain the Akhara out of the income of the groveland. In 1862 
she made a will wherein she described the groveland having the Asthan of 
Mahabirji and Mahadeoji as having been dedicated by her husband. She 
enjoined her son Mangli Prasad to continue to maintain the Akhara 'as 
heretofore,' and empowered him to appoint his successors in management 
from among the descendants of Mani Ram. 
Mangli Prasad was succeeded 
in management by his widow. After the latter's death there was litigation 
between her legatee and Mangli Prasad's daughter Sheodei Kaur. The 
Court declared the said groveland and Akhara to be endowed property and 
held that Sheodei Kaur was entitled to the possession thereof as manager. 
The property canie into the possession of Ishwar Narain, the son of 
Sheodei Kaur, in 1906. He built. a cinema house on a part of the said 
gro-;eland in 1914-15. In 1937 the Improvement Trust of Kanpur acquir-
ed the groveland, the structures on it, as well as the surrounding property. 
In reference proceedings regarding compensation a compromise was arrived 
at whereby the Improvement Trust agreed to sell to lshwar Narain the por-
ti'?D of the acquired property corresponding to the endowed property along 
with the structures thereon for Rs. 25,000 which amount was adjusted 
against the total compensation payable to him for the acquired property. 
~ 
Ishw~ Narain's death in 1948 the propeny which was described in his 
will ~ h1~ personal property passed to his sister's sons who were enjoined 
to mamtam the Akhara and the Asthan. The respondents through their 
next friend instituted a suit in which they challenged tlie bequest on the 
~ound that the Akhara and the groveland constituted trust property. The 
trial court ~eld that the possession of the property in question by Mani 
Ram and ht~ s~ccessors. was that of managers or trustees, it further held 
that the dedication was 1n favour of the Manager or trustee tor the main-
tenance of the Akhara. The High Court held that the dedication was in 
favour of the idols of Mahabirji and Mahadeoji. In appeal to this Court 
by certificate the main question for consideration \vas \Vhether there was 
810 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1970]2 S.C.R. 
a valid trust under Hindu law in favour of the respondents. ·The appellant 
also urged that what was dedicated was not the groveland but the grove, 
and that after the purchase by Ishwarlal of the groveland and the structures 
thereon from the Improvement Tru<;t that property could no longer be 
treated u a trust. 
HELD: (i) (a) The doouments on record as also the evidence as 
to the conduct of Mani Ram and those who held the property after him 
clearly •howed that Mani Ram dedicated the groveland and not merely 
the treeo standing thereon. 
[816 CJ 
(b) The purchase of part of the said property a'fter its acquisition was 
from out of the compensation received by Ishwar Narain and not out of 
his personal funds, so that if the trust was in law a valid one, the property 
purch>Sed by him out of the trmt funds would be stamped with the trust 
B 
and he would in that event be holding that property as a trustee or man

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