STATE OF U.P. versus SAYED ABDUL JALIL

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 342 · Decided: 01-02-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

342 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
SAYED ABDUL JALIL 
February 1, 1972 
[S. M .. S!KRI, C.J., A. N. RAY AND M. H: BEG, JJ.] 
A1aho1n111edan law-Order of Muslim ruler of Princely State a.Uotting 
.l1ouse-lf would n1J1ount to a gift of the corpus-Whether operates tu a 
grnnt of life e:-.·tate or a revocable licenct-lndian Evidence Act ( 1 o/ 
1872), s. 92 proviso (6)-Admissihilit,v of other el'idtnce. 
Pursuant to an order by a Muslim ruler of an erstwhile princely-State, 
th..: respondent \VUs allotted a house o:ind he \\'as Jiving in it. 
After the 
merger of th·~ princely-State with the appellant-State, rent was demanded 
from the res~ondent and he filed a suit for a declaration that he was the 
o\vner in possession of the house; and in the 3(tefnative; that he was a 
licensee entitled to remain in possession for life without payment of any 
rent. 
The High Court, in sec~:md appeal, held that the use of the Urdu 
words 'inteqal' and 'atta' showed that the Ruler intended the order to be 
a valid declaration of gift under Mohammedan Law and that when the 
respondent took possession of the house, he became its owner. The High 
Court also held that no other evidence was admissible for deciding on the 
Ruler's intention. 
-
Allowing the appeal to this Court, 
HELD : ( 1) There being no mention in the order either of riahts of · 
ownership or those of a life .. estate holder, the mere use of the two words, 
did not determine what was meant' to be granted. The word 'inteqal' is 
used in connection with a transfer of property, but in the context of its 
use here, it could only indicate that the respondent was to )lave chanae 
or tramfer his residence in the physical sense. 
The word 
1atta' iS: used 
to denote all kinds of grants including a. mere permission to live in ~ 
house. 
Therefore. assuming tbat the order reduced the terms of a grant 
to writing, oral and other eYidence was both necessary and. admissible 
under s. 92, proviso (6), Evidence Ac~, to resolve the latent ambiguity. 
The evidence adduced in the case, however, is more consistent with the 
view th~t the Ruler meant to resolve the immediate financial difficulty of 
the respondent by giving him free residential accommodation than with 
a conferment of the ownership of or a life interest in the house. [346 B-H] 
( 2) There wos no declaration of any gift either of the corpus or the 
usufruct and the admissible evidence relating to the nature of the transac- · 
tion, which the High Court should have considered, showed, 
th~t the 
transaction amounted to nothing more than a grant of '1 licence revocable 
at the grantor's option. From the mere expenditure by the respondent of 
money over some necessary repairs, an inference of a larger gfant O'Jnnot 
be drawn. [347 C-EJ 
CML APPELLATE JUP.ISD!CTION : Civil Appeal No. 279 of 
1967. 
A 
c 
D 
p 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
U.P. STATE V. ABDUL JALIL (Beg, J.) 
343 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
September 15, 1966 of the 
Allahabad High Court in Second 
Appeal No. 222 of 1960. 
G. N. Diks/1it and 0. P. Ran.a, for the appellants. 
E. C. Agrawala, for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Beg, J. There are two appeals by Special Leave before us, 
Leave, against the Judgment a.nd decree of a learned Judge of 
the Allahabad High Court allowing a plaintiff's se.cond appeal 
The plaintiff's case was that the Governmeur of Rampur had 
given him a house "under the orders of His Highness the Nawab 
of Rampur, passeq on 23rd June, 1945". It appears that, after 
the merger of Rampur State in Uttar Pradesh in 1949, when 
Rampur became a district of Uttar Pradesh, this house was given 
by the Governme.nt of Uttar Pradesh to the Municipal Board of 
R&mpur, Defendant-Appellant, which c!emanded rent from the 
plaintiff by notice. 
On the plaintiff's refusal to pay, the house 
was attached on 23rd February, 1955. 
The plaintiff deposited 
a sum of Rs. 100- under protest. He then filed his suit, on 
26-10-56, for a declaration that he is the own~r in possession of 
the house, and, in the alternative, that he is a "licensee" entitled 
to remain in possession of the house for life without payment of 
rent. 
-
The defendants, the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Municipal 
Board of Rampur, and the Public Works Department at Rampur, · 
d~med the alleged gift of either the ownership or of a life-intere!ll 
in the house to the plaintiff. 
They also pleaded that there was 
no relationshi

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