RAMKISHORE LAL versus KAMAL NARAIN

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 22-11-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
RAMKISHORE LAL 
ti. 
KAMAL NARAIN 
\B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GuFTA and 
J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 
417 
001U1trmtirm of Documents:._Partition award-"Milkiyat" 
rigkts given tc one co-sharer for purpo" of spending income on 
temple-Later recitals •hawing dedication to temple-If absolute 
dedication in favour of templ•-Dedicatirm, if can b• made by 
partitirm award. 
A registered partition award made by Panchas between 
all the co-sharers provided : 
"Mouza Telibandha-together with all rights and inter. 
rests of proprietorship has been given to Ramsaranlal .... 
for the undermentioned purposes. 
From the profits and 
income 
Ramsaranlal 
shall incur expenses . ..... Shri 
Ramchandra Swami Math Shri Dudhadherji, according 
as the same expenses have been continuing to be met up to 
this day .... If this work fails to be done .... any co-
sharer who 
may 
benefit .... shall take 
this Mouza 
Telibandha together with all rights and interests into his 
possession and carry on the work of the temple .... None 
of the co-3harers and Ramsaranlal have any rights over it. 
Ramsaranlal or any other co-sharers have neither got, nor 
shall have, any right to transfer .. Mouza Telibandha ... , 
because Mouza Telibandha has been reserved for ever 
for the aforesaid purpose and it shall continue to be so 
only " 
Some of the co-sharers filed a suit to set aside the award. 
The parties referred the matter to one Mr. Bagchi and in view 
of his award a compromise petition was filed 
and the suit 
was di~nnisscd. The appellants contended that the partition 
award made an absolute dedication of the Mouza in favour of 
the temple. The respondent contended that the award gave 
the Mouza in full proprietorship to Ramsaranlal with only a 
charge on it to meet the expenses of the temple, that the 
partition award could not validly create a dedication and that 
the partition award wa. modified by the Bagchi award, 
1962 
NoMnber, 22. 
1962 
RamkUhote Lal 
•• 
Karna/ Nara ht 
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
lleld, that the partition award created an absolute dedi-
cation of Mou'la Telibandha in favour of the temple. Though 
the use of the words "Malik" and ·•Milkiyat" indicated the 
conferment of an absolute estate, it w,ls not invariably so and 
it was necessary to examine the context in each case. 
Where 
the intention is to grant an ab.-.olute estate, an attempt to 
reduce the powers of the O\vner by imposing restraints on 
alienation has to be repelled on the ground of rcpugnancy; but 
where the restrictions are the primary things intended and they 
are consistent with the whole trnor of document, it is a material 
circurnstanre for displacing the presumption of absolute owner-
ship implied in the use of the word "Malik". The use of the 
words "Kul haq haquq samet Milkiyal" in the opening clause of 
the award raised a presumption that absolute interest was given 
theieby to Ramsaranlal, but the later recitals rebutted this 
presumption. Considering all the different provisions, it \\'as 
clear that the intention was not to make Ra1nsaranlal absohite 
owner but to give hirn posses<don and 
management of the 
Mouza for the henellt of the temple. 
SaliebzaJa Mohd. Kamgar Shah v. Jag1lish Chandra Rao 
Dhabal Dro, [1960] 3 S.C.R. 604, La/it Mohan Singh Roy v. 
Chukhtna Lal Roy, [1897] L.R. 24 I.A. 76; M.<t. 81irajmani v. 
Rabi Nath Ojha, (1907) L.R, 35 I. A. 17; Satjoo Bala Devi v. 
Jyotirmoyee Debi, (1931) L. R. 58 I. A. 270, Mohamed Shamsool 
v. Shewukram, (1874) L. R. 2 I A. 7 and Rai Bajrnng Bah<Ulnr 
Singh v, Thakurain Baklttrai Kuer, [1953] 3 S.C.R. 232, 
referred to. 
The partition award validly dedicated the Mouza in 
favour of the temple. The act of the Panchas in making the 
award was really the act of the owners of the property who had 
full right to make the dedication. Once an obsolute dedication 
had been made hy the partition award the former O'vners h;.d 
no legal authority to go behind the dedication and accordingly 
the Ragchi award could not affect the dedication. 
CIVIL APPELLATE Ju1usnrcTION : Civil Appeal 
No. 523 of 1960. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated 
December 5, l!.157 of the former Madhya Pradesh 
High Court at Nagpur in First Appeal No. 112 of 
1952. 
C. K. Daphtary, 8olicitor-General of 
B. R. L. Iyengar, B. R. G. K. Achar and 
llathi, for the Appellants. 
India, 
K. L. 
r 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
419 
M. O. Seialvad, Attorn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.