SURAJ KUMAR SINGH Vs. RADHA KRISHNAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the sons of an actual reversioner for getting a deed of dedication of "wakfnama" executed in 1894 by their relative Mt. Pankhawati Chaudhrain, a Hindu widow, declared inoperative, and for recovery of possession of the properties covered by the deed. Mt. Pankhawati was the wife of one Mathur Lal Singh, who separated from his brother Brij Lal in the year 1277 of the mulki era (corresponding to 1869 A.D.) and died the following year. Bijoy Gopal, the father of the plaintiffs, who died in 1927, was the only son of Brij Lal to survive Mt. Pankhawati who died in 1333 (1925 A.D.); he was thus the sole actual reversioner and has been succeeded by the plaintiffs. Nanihal was another son of Brij Lal's and father of Raghunath who, as a minor under the guardianship of Mt. Pankhawati's sister's husband Dharanidhar, was appointed she-bait by the "wakfnama" in question. It appears from Ex. B, the judgment in a suit brought by Mt. Pankhawati herself in 1913 to have the wakfnama set aside as fictitious, that Raghunath died in 1313; and the defendant in the present suit was the idol Shri Radha Krishnaji through shebait Sharat Sundari Dasi, widow of Raghunath.

(2.) The wakfnama dedicated certain properties yielding a yearly income of Rs. 600 to a Thakurbari which, according to the deed, had been erected, and pujas and sevas instituted, by Mathur Lal Singh himself. The deed speaks of the endowment being made in accordance with the wishes and oral instructions of Mathur Lal. The Subordinate Judge who tried the suit found that the defence story that the endowment was made in consonance with the desires of Mathur Lal Singh was neither more nor less than a myth, that contrary to the statement in the deed, there was no temple built by Mathur Lal himself, and that though Mt. Pankhawati constructed a temple, it was not shown that she really did this for the spiritual welfare of her husband. Raghunath had been living with her and was being maintained by her, and the learned Judge apparently believed that the wakfnama was executed under the influence of her manager Nanihal with the real object of assigning some properties to his minor son Raghunath. He also found that the proportion of property dedicated was in excess of the power of a Hindu widow to alienate for the spiritual benefit of her husband. He accordingly held that the endowment was not binding upon the plaintiffs and decreed the suit. An appeal was heard by the Additional District Judge and allowed the suit being dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs have therefore appealed, and it has been contended on their behalf that the learned District Judge, having, agreed with the lower Court that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that Mathur Lal had actually enjoined his wife to dedicate the property, erred in proceeding to find that it was not solely with a secular object that the dedication was made, and in holding on "a perusal of Ex. 4," the wakf deed, that, the thought of her husband was uppermost in the Musammat's mind at the time the deed was executed.

(3.) There is force in this contention. The plaintiffs had not denied the construction of a temple by the widow, and their case was that the dedication was not bonafide (i.e. for the spiritual benefit of her husband) but really for the maintenance of Raghunath and his heirs: see para. 7 of the plaint. That does not mean that the dedication was made solely with a secular object. Nor is it easy to see how a widow bent on the spiritual good of her husband would indulge in such myths as that her husband had erected the Thakurbari and that he had orally instructed her to dedicate some properties, which we do find in the deed of dedication, she could hardly have hoped to deceive the deity. The learned District Judge has also not referred to Ex. 1, a document executed by Mt. Pankhawati shortly after her husband's death, promising to conserve the property that had come to her from Mathur Lal for Brij Lal and his heirs. He has also not considered Exs. 6 and 7, judgments, which in the words of the trial Court, go to show that Nanihal Singh was acting as the manager of Mt. Pankhawati from 1801 to 1315 M.S.