RAM BHAROSE SHARMA versus MAHANT RAM SWAROOP AND ORS.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 715 · Decided: 06-02-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.S.M. QUADRI, S.N. PHUKAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

RAM BHAROSE SHARMA 
A 
v. 
MAHANT RAM SWAROOP AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 6, 2001 
(SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] 
B 
Rajasthan land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952-ss. 2(d) 
and 23(1)-Udak Jagir-Grant made by the then Ruler in favour of a Swami 
belonging to Ram Sanehi Sect-Application by Che/a for exemption of Jagir 
property-Objections by tenants-Application allowed by Jagir Commisioner C 
holding that Jagir was a personal grant to predecessor-in-interest of 
applicant-order affirmed by Board of Revenue-High Court upholding order 
of Board of Revenue-Held, grant being a personal grant of Udak Jagir and 
the mutation being governed by the Jaipur Matmi Rules, the State Government 
granted mutation to Che/a in 1964-High Court commilted no error in D 
upholding order of Board of Revenue-Jaipur Matmi Rules, 1945-Ram 
Snehi Sect-Matmi lo Che/a. 
'Udak Jagir' and 'Bhog Jagir'-Disinction between. 
Rajasthan Public Trust Act, 1954 : 
Trust-Udak Jagir-Grant made to a Swami of Ram Snehi Sect-
Applicalion for registration of Jagir property as public trust-Assis/an/ 
Commisioner holding it a personal grant and not a public trust-
Commissioner holding it to be public trust-High Court setting aside order 
E 
of Commissioner and restoring that of Assistant Commissioner-Held, when F 
an ostensible owner holds a propaty for beneifi of another person as an 
obligation annexed to the ownersh!P· he is said to hold the property in trust 
for that other person-There is no recital indicating that the grant is made 
for the benefit of any group or sect of persons and that any obligation was 
annexed to the ownership of Jagir property held by the grantee so as to hold 
that Jagir property for their benefit-Gran/ is lo the individual-Deed of G 
grant does no/ speak of performing any religious services by the grantee or 
his successors-It is a pure and simple personal grant-It is, therefore, not 
possible to accept that the grant was in the name of a trust. 
Halsbury1's laws of England, Vol 48, para 501, referred to. 
715 
H 
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Deeds and Documents : 
Interpretation of-Grant of Udak Jagir-Grant is to be construed 
primarily on the basis of recitals conlained therein-Where the words of 
grant are clear, full effect must be given to them. 
B 
Practice and Procedure : 
Pleadings-Plea that holder of grant of Udak Jagir having admitted 
the Jagir property to be a public trust cannot claim it to be an individual 
grant-Held, whether the grant is a personal grant, the grant to an institution 
or grant in trust for the benefit of others is primarily mixed question of fact 
C and law and has to be determined on the facts of each case-An admission 
of a fact certainly binds the maker of it and not an admission of a question 
of law. 
Words and Phrases: 
D 
'Udak Jagir', 'Bhog Jagir'-Meaning of in the context of Rajasthan 
land Reforms and Resumption of Jagirs Act, 1952. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 
1994. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 1.9.92 of the Rajasthan High Court 
F 
G 
in D.B.C.W.P. No. 2150of1992. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 1634of1994. 
B.D. Sharma, Narottam Vyas and Vidyasagar for the Appellant. 
U.N. Bhachawat, Sushil K. Jain, Ms. Anjali Doshi, Ms. Sandhya Goswami, 
M.P.S. Tomar and S.K. Bhattacharya for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
These two appeals arise from two judgments and orders of the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur. Civil Appeal No. 1616 of 1994 
is from the the judgment and order of the said High Court in D.B.CWP 
No.2150 of 1992 dated September I, 1992 and Civil Appeal No. 1634 of 1994 
H is from the judgment of the Division Bench in 0.8. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) · 
-
R.B. SHARMA v. MAHANT RAM SWAROOP 
717 
No. 44of1992 dated September 1, 1992. The subject-matter and the contesting A 
respondent are common in these appeals. 
To comprehend the controversy in these appeals, it will be useful to 
refer to the facts giving rise to them. The appellants in these appeals are the 
tenants of the first respondent in different portions of the Jagir property. They 
have suffered orders of eviction and are up in arms against him. They have B 
lodged two prongs attack on his title to the Jagir property which will be 
referred to presently. 
In Samvat 1893, on the request of one Swami Ram Ballabh, land of an 
extent of 6 bighas and 4 biswas situated in Town Sawai Jaipur, outside 
Kishanpo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.