SARDAR SINGH Vs. KUNJ BIHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court at Allahabad, dated the 6 of June, 1918, and arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff Laltu Singh, since deceased, in the court of the Subordinate Judge of Moradabad on the 13 of September, 1913. The object of the suit was to set aside an alienation purporting to have been made for a religious or pious purpose by a Hindu lady of the name of Rani Kishori on the 8 of January, 1.876. The point involved in the determination of the appeal relates to the powers of a Hindu female on whom property devolves upon the death of the husband, son or father, as a limited estate, to alienate any part of the property for religious purposes. Rani Kishori was the widow of Raja Gur Sahai, who died in 1868 and was at the time of his death possessed of a considerable estate, yielding an annual income of some Rs. 60,000. He left two minor sons, both of whom died in infancy in 1873, five years after the death of their father. The property then devolved on Rani Kishori in succession to her sons. The Rani died on the 16 of August, 1907, when succession opened to the reversioners of Raja Gur Sahai. There was some litigation as to the right of reversion, which was finally adjudged in favour of Laltu Singh, the plaintiff, and he, as stated before, brought the suit on the 13 of September, 1913, to set aside the alienation referred to above. It appears, upon the evidence, that after the death of her sons the widowed mother, according to the custom of pious Hindus, especially, females, made pilgrimages to different sacred cities, among them Benares, Gaya and Puri, She appears to have visited Puri in the year 1875, and there made a sankalpa or vow to create a dedication for the observance of bhog or food offerings to the presiding deity, and for the maintenance of the priests (pandas) who were charged with the performance of that duty. In 1876 she gave effect to her sankalpa by executing, as it is alleged on behalf of the defendants, a document purporting to be a gift for the purpose referred to.

(2.) That document, so far as is material for the purposes of this judgment, is in the following terms: I, Musammat Rani Kishori Kunwar, widow of Raja Gur Sahai, deceased, by caste a Jat, rais and resident of Moradabad, do declare as follows: Whereas I, according to the custom prevailing among the Hindus, happened to go on a pilgrimage to Prayagji and Kashiji and on a visit to Jagannath in 1282 Fasli, and at the time of paying a. visit to, and performing the worship of Jagannathji Maharaj, made a charitable gift and shankalp of a moiety of a pukka built house facing the cast in mahalla Sambhal Darwaza in Moradabad and of a 15 biswa 9 biswansi 2 kachwansi 3 tanwansi share in mauza Sherpur, a 15 biswa 9 biswansi 2 kachwansi 3 tanwansi share in Sarai Kazi, a 15 biswa share in Rustampur Hayat and a 15 biswa share in Shahjahanpur Hayat, the zamindari Villages in pargana Hasanpur, together with all the culturable and unculturable lands, abadi, houses that are let on rent, artisan's cess, grazing charges, barren land, water produce, tanks, lakes, groves, fruits and timber trees, i.e., all the inherent and adventitious rights and interests in the revenue paying zamindari property in the said villages and also of two pakka havelis (houses) in mauza-Sherpur aforesaid, in favour of Jagannathji Maharaj, installed in the temple at Jagannathpuri and of Anant Ram, son of Gobardhan, khurd (junior), resident of Puri aforesaid, and Jai Ram, son of Bhawani Das, resident of Durgapur, appertaining to Puri aforesaid, district Katak, both the Pandas of Jagannathji Maharaj. But no document was executed at the time the shankalp was made. Now this document is executed with the following conditions:Both the Pandas aforesaid should enter into possession and make management of the aforesaid property and after paying the Government revenue and village expenses out of the annual income, spend half of the net profits on the daily bhog (food offering) of Jagannathji Maharaj, and bring the other half to their own use, in equal shares. After them, their descendants and successors should enter into possession and enjoyment, generation after generation, and should, in duo order, distribute the profits, according to the specification given above and daily spend money on the bhog of Maharaj, Whoever will be my successor and representative after me shall have no claim or objection to the gifted and endowed property, by reason of the execution of this deed. If, perchance, they bring any claim it shall not be entertainable by the court, inasmuch as the property of which I have made a charitable gift and shankalp is of the nature of devatra (?) and tulsipatra property. According to the Hindu Law, the income of the said property is not such as may be brought by mo or my successors to our own use. The said property is the self-acquired and exclusive property of my deceased husband, Raja Gur Sahai. I have made a charitable gift and shankalp of the property for the salvation of my husband and his family members and for my own salvation. The gift property is worth Rs. 2,500. 1 have, therefore, executed these few presents by way of a deed of gift, so that they may serve as evidence and be of use when needed.

(3.) It purports to have been executed for the lady by her general attorney Ajab Singh, and a question was raised on behalf of the plaintiff's that the deed of gift was fraudulently executed by Ajab Singh in collusion with the donees, and was not the act of the Rani herself. In the view he took of the case the Subordinate Judge did not deal with the question of the authenticity of the document, but the High Court, on the examination of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the deed was the deed of Rani Kishori. The contention against the genuineness of the document has not been pressed before the Board, and their Lordships think upon the evidence there is no real foundation for the charge that it was not the act of the Rani. Before the first court the trial proceeded on the question of the power of the lady to make an alienation, the plaintiff contending that it was invalid, while the defendants urged that it was fully within her competency. The Subordinate Judge decided in favour of the plaintiffs on two grounds--first, that it was not competent for the lady to make the alienation, as it was not for the performance of any religious duty which amounted to a necessity under the Hindu law; the second ground of his decision was that the lady had abundant means for giving effect to her pious intention, the sankalpa, to which she refers in the deed of gift, and that consequently the gift was invalid. He accordingly made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs. On appeal the High Court came to a different conclusion. They held that her alienation, although not in performance of a necessary duty, was nevertheless a pious act and was, therefore, valid. They held also that the lady had inherited a large estate, and that the dedication covered a very small fraction of the property, something like one-seventy-fifth. They accordingly dismissed the plaintiff's suit.