Skip to content


Deputy Commissioner Vs. Karta Ram and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtPunjab and Haryana
Decided On
Reported inAIR1949P& H182
AppellantDeputy Commissioner
RespondentKarta Ram and anr.
Excerpt:
.....passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 5. clause (b) of section 3, sub-section (2), punjab alienation of land act, allows a gift made in good faith for a religious or charitable purpose, whether inter vivos or by will by a member of an agricultural tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of such a tribe......without having any such purpose in view even though the donor may have been induced to make the gift by religious or charitable motives and may even believe that the gift would confer some religious merit on him. the object of the bounty need not necessarily be of a public character but the gift must certainly be intended to do something more than confer a personal benefit on the donee. it may be that if a gift is made to a brahman on some particular occasion and, in circumstances, in which it is generally believed by the community to which the donor belongs to be calculated to confer some religious or spiritual merit on the donor, such a gift may reasonably be held to fall within the purview of the clause in question.7. i am, however, not prepared to hold that gift of land made to a.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Acchru Ram, J.

1. This petition for revision has arisen under the following circumstances. Mt. Bakhtawari widow of Chuhra, caste Jat, owns a considerable area of land in the village Naugiari in Kharar Tehsil in the District Ambala. On 20th May 1942 she made an oral gift of 7 bighas and 17 bisivas of land in favour of Karta Ram son of Telu Ram, a Gaur Brahman of a neighbouring village. The fact of this gift was reported to the Patwari by the Sub-Inspector of consolidation of holdings by means of a Parcha and the Patwari put up a mutation on 27th May 1942. Although the Tehsildar reported that the gift seemed to have been made bona fide out of religious motives and submitted a recommendation to the Sub-Divisional Officer for the mutation being sanctioned the latter officer thought differently and being of the opinion that the gift was being made in contravention of the provisions of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act suggested rejection of the mutation. The mutation was accordingly rejected.

2. On 10th March 1943, the aforesaid Karta Ram brought a suit against Mt. Bakhtawari for a declaration of his title to the land forming the subject-matter of the gift alleging that the gift having been made in his favour for religious and charitable purposes was valid and did not constitute a contravention of the Alienation of Land Act. He further alleged that the mutation had been wrongly refused by the Revenue Officer and that inasmuch as the refusal of the mutation was likely to prejudice him he had sued for a declaration of his title. Mt. Bakhtawari confess, ed judgment and admitted that she had gifted the suit land to the plaintiff for religious and charitable purposes. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the plaintiff's claim. The Deputy Commissioner has applied under Section 21A, Punjab Alienation of Land Act, for a revision of the decree on the ground that it involves a contra, vention of the provisions of the Punjab Alienation of Land Act.

3. By means of my order dated 16th March 1948 I remitted the case to the learned Senior Subordinate Judge for recording evidence of the parties on the question whether the gift had in fact been made for a religious or charitable purpose. The record of evidence has been received and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

4. The gist of the evidence is that Mt. Bakhtawari gifted the suit land which formed a small fraction of her holding to Karta Ram who was her prohit as dan or pun.

5. Clause (b) of Section 3, Sub-section (2), Punjab Alienation of Land Act, allows a gift made in good faith for a religious or charitable purpose, whether inter vivos or by will by a member of an agricultural tribe in favour of a person who is not a member of such a tribe. It was Gontended by the learned Advocate-General that in order to comply with the provisions of the aforesaid clause the purpose for which the gift is made must be religious or charitable in its nature and that it is not enough that the gift has been made out of a religious or charitable motive. He urged that what was really contemplated by the Legislature was something in the nature of a religious or charitable endowment.

6. After giving the matter my very careful thought, I feel that there is considerable force in the contention of the learned Advocate-General. While I am not prepared to go to the length of confining the operation of clause (b) merely to cases of religious or charitable endowments I have no doubt in my mind that in order to bring is gift within the purview of the said clause it must be shown that the donor had in view some religious or charitable purpose which was the real object of his bounty and which wafts intended to be benefited by the gift. I am not prepared to extend the clause to a case in which the gift has been made without having any such purpose in view even though the donor may have been induced to make the gift by religious or charitable motives and may even believe that the gift would confer some religious merit on him. The object of the bounty need not necessarily be of a public character but the gift must certainly be intended to do something more than confer a personal benefit on the donee. It may be that if a gift is made to a Brahman on some particular occasion and, in circumstances, in which it is generally believed by the community to which the donor belongs to be calculated to confer some religious or spiritual merit on the donor, such a gift may reasonably be held to fall within the purview of the clause in question.

7. I am, however, not prepared to hold that gift of land made to a Brahman merely on account of his being a proliit of the donor even though believed by such donor to be meritorious from a religious point of view can attract the application of the clause.

8. In the present case, as I have stated before, the evidence is only to the effect that the donee was the donor's prohit and that the land was gifted to him as dan or pun. I am of the opinion that on this evidence the requirements of clause (b) cannot be said to be fulfilled. I accordingly allow this petition and set aside the decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge in favour of Karta Ram declaring him to be the owner of the suit land. In the circumstances of the case I make no order as to the costs of these proceedings.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //