{"id":85303,"date":"1969-10-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-10-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969"},"modified":"2018-06-17T12:38:48","modified_gmt":"2018-06-17T07:08:48","slug":"pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969","title":{"rendered":"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And … on 15 October, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And … on 15 October, 1969<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 458, \t\t 1970 SCR (2) 809<\/div>\n
Author: Shelat<\/div>\n
Bench: Shelat, J.M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nPT.  RAM CHANDRA SHUKLA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSHREE MAHADEOJI, MAHABIRJI AND HAZRAT ALIKANPUR & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n15\/10\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nBENCH:\nSHELAT, J.M.\nVAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.\nDUA, I.D.\n\nCITATION:\n 1970 AIR  458\t\t  1970 SCR  (2) 809\n 1969 SCC  (3) 700\n\n\nACT:\nHindu  Law-Property dedicated for promotion of the sport  of\nwrestling whether constitutes a valid trust under Hindu Law-\nSuch property along with other property acquired under\tLand\nAcquisition    Act,   1894-Compromise\t during\t   reference\nproceedings-Endowed property purchased by manager and  price\nadjusted against total compensation-Whether on such purchase\nproperty loses its character as trust property.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nOne Mani Ram, a wrestler, owned certain properties including\na  groveland.  In the groveland\t he maintained an Akhara  or\nwrestling ground.  He spent the income from the groveland as\nwell as his other income for the promotion of wrestling.  On\nthe  archgate  of  the\tAkhara\twas  installed\tan  idol  of\nmahabirji  and\tover a small room nearby a Shiv\t Lingam\t was\ninstalled.   In order to attract Muslim wrestlers a  tasweer\nof  Hazrat Ali was also placed in the Akhara.  In 1830\tMani\nRam partitioned his properties.\t He took a one eighth  share\nincluding  the said groveland for himself and wife.  In\t the\npartition  deed the said groveland was described as a  wakf.\nAfter  Mani Ram's death his wife entered into possession  of\nhis  property and continued to maintain the A khara  out  of\nthe  income  of\t the groveland.\t In 1862  she  made  a\twill\nwherein\t she  described the groveland having the  Asthan  of\nMahabirji  and\tMahadeoji as having been  dedicated  by\t her\nhusband.  She enjoined her son Mangli Prasad to continue  to\nmaintain  the Akhara 'as heretofore,' and empowered  him  to\nappoint\t  his  successors  in  management  from\t among\t the\ndescendants  of\t Mani Ram.  Mangli Prasad was  succeeded  in\nmanagement by his widow.  After the later's death there\t was\nlitigation  between her legate and Mangli Prasad's  daughter\nSheodei\t Kaur.\t The Court declared the said  groveland\t and\nAkhara to be endowed property and held that Sheodei Kaur was\nentitled to the possession thereof as manager.\tThe property\ncame  into  the\t possession of Ishwar  Narain,\tthe  son  of\nSheodei Kaur, in 1906.\tHe built a cinema house on a part of\nthe  said  groveland in 1914-15.  In  1937  the\t Improvement\nTrust  of Kanpur acquired the groveland, the  structures  on\nit,  as\t well  as the surrounding  property.   In  reference\nproceedings regarding compensation a compromise was  arrived\nat  whereby the Improvement Trust agreed to sell  to  ishwar\nNarain the portion of the acquired property corresponding to\nthe  endowed property along with the structures thereon\t for\nRs.  25,000  which  amount was adjusted\t against  the  total\ncompensation  payable to him for the acquired property.\t  On\nIshwar\tNarain's  death\t in  1948  the\tproperty  which\t was\ndescribed in his will as his personal property passed to his\nsister's  sons who were enjoined to maintain the Akhara\t and\nthe  Asthan.   The  respondents through\t their\tnext  friend\ninstituted  a suit in which they challenged the\t bequest  on\nthe  ground  that the Akhara and the  groveland\t constituted\ntrust property.\t The trial court held that the possession of\nthe property in question by Mani Ram and his successors\t was\nthat  of  managers  or trustees, it further  held  that\t the\ndedication  was in favour of the Manager or trustee for\t the\nmaintenance  of\t the Akhara.  The High Court held  that\t the\ndedication  was\t in  favour  of the  idols  of\tMahabir\t and\nMahadeoji.  In appeal to this Court by certificate the\tmain\nquestion for consideration was whether there was\n810\na valid trust under Hindu law in favour of the\trespondents.\nThe appellant also urged that what was dedicated was not the\ngroveland  but\tthe grove, and that after  the\tpurchase  by\nIshwarlal  of the groveland and the structures thereon\tfrom\nthe  Improvement  Trust\t that property could  no  longer  be\ntreated as a trust.\nHELD : (i) (a) The documents on record as also the  evidence\nas  to\tthe  conduct  of Mani Ram and  those  who  held\t the\nproperty  after him clearly showed that Mani  Ram  dedicated\nthe  groveland and not merely the trees\t standing  thereon.\n[816 C]\n(b)  The  purchase  of part of the said property  after\t its\nacquisition  was  from out of the compensation\treceived  by\nIshwar\tNarain and not out of his personal funds so that  if\nthe trust was in law a valid one, the property purchased  by\nhim  out of the trust funds would he stamped with the  trust\nand  he\t would in that event be holding that property  as  a\ntrustee or manager and no as an owner. [816 D]\n(ii) However the trust could not in the present case be held\nto a valid one under Hindu law. [822 B-C]\nA  dedication of property for a religious, or  a  charitable\npurpose can, according to Hindu law, be validly made  orally\nand  no Writing is necessary to create an  endowment  extent\nwhen it is created by a will.  An appropriation of  property\nfor specific religious or charitable purposes is all that is\nnecessary  for\ta  valid  dedication.\tHindu  piety   found\nexpression  in gifts to idols to religious institutions\t and\nfor all purposes considered meritorious in the Hindu  social\nand  religious system.\tThere is no line of  demarcation  in\nthe Hindu system between religion and chairity : gifts\tboth\n(or  religious\tand charitable purposes are impaled  by\t the\ndesire\tto acquire religious merit.  They may take the\tform\nof  Istha  (sacrifices\tand  sacrificial  gifts)  or   Purta\n(charities  such  as maintenance of  temples,  tanks,  wells\netc.). But the terms Istha and Purta themselves are  elastic\nand  admit of no rigid definition.  As times  advanced\tmore\nand  more categories of acts considered to be beneficial  to\nthe  public  would be recognize depending on the  needs\t and\nbeliefs of the time. [819 C-G, 820 B-C]\nBut  there  is\tnothing- to show that  the  promotion  of  a\nparticular game either for entertainment of the public or as\nencouragement  to  those who take part in it has  ever\tbeen\nreconised  as  a charitable trust according It)\t Hindu\tlaw.\nNeither Pandit Prannath Saraswati, nor mukherjea, nor  Maynt\nsuggests in his treatise that a dedication for the promotion\nof   particular\t game or sport is a charitable\ttrust  under\nHindu law. [820 F-G]\nThe  English  law  of  trusts as found\tin  the\t Statute  of\nElizabeth  or the law relating to Superstitious Uses is\t not\napplicable  to India.  But even in English cases  dedication\nfor  promotion of games, except as a part of education,\t his\nnot been treated as a charitable trust. [820 H; 821 E]\nAs  held  by  this  Court in  Saraswathi  Ammal's  case,  in\ndetermining  the validity of a trust under Hindu law  it  is\nthe dominant purpose of the turst which is relevant. In\t the\npresent case the purpose of installing the two idols and the\ntasweer\t clearly  was to enable the wrestlers to  pay  their\nhomage\tand  salutations to the patron deities of  the\tgame\nbefore\tentering into the wrestling arena. On the  facts  it\nmust be held that the dominant object of the dedication\t was\nthe Akhara and the said idols and the tasweer were installed\nonly  to  attract  persons of both the\tcommunities  to\t the\nAkhara\tand  to\t provide for them  there  the  facility\t for\ninvoking the divine benediction before they participated  in\nwrestling [818 E-G]\n811\nThat being the position it was impossible, in the absence of\nany authority textual or by way of a president, to hold that\nthe  dedication\t in question was for either a  religious  or\ncharitable purpose recognised by, Hindu law. [822 B-C]\nThe appeal must accordingly be allowed.\nSaraswathi  Ammal & Apr. v.  Rajagopal Ammal,<\/a> [1954]  S.C.R.\n277,  Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi v. Duddukuru\t Subba\tRao,<\/a>\n[1957]\tS.C.R. 1122 at 1128 and \" Vidyavaruthi\tv.  Balusami\nAyyar, ( 1921 ) 48 I.A. 302 at 311, relied on.\nCommissioners  for  special  Purposes of  the  Income-tax  v\nPemsel, [1891] A.C. 581 at 583 In  Notage, Jones v.  Palmer,\n[1895]\tCh.  649,  In re Hadden Public\t Trustee  v.,  More,\n[1931] 1 Ch. 133, In re Marietta, Marietta v. Governing Body\nof  Aldenham School, [1915] 2 Ch. 284, In re Daley v.  Lloys\nBank  Ltd.  [1945] 114 L.J Ch 1, Trustees  of  the   Tribune\npress  v. Commissioner of income-tax I.L.R. [1945] Bom.\t 153\nand  cricket Association , Bengal v. Commissioner of  Income\ntax, Calcutta, A.I.R. 1959 Cal. 296. referred to.).\nMayne's Hindu Law 11th Ed. p. 192, mukherjea's Hindu law and\nReligious  and\tCharitable Trust 2nd Ed.p.  11,\t and  Pandit\nPrannath  Sarasvati's Hindu Law of Endowments 1897, pp.\t 26-\n27. relied on.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal No. 1393 of 1967.
\nAppeal from the judgment and decree dated August 5, 1965  of
\nthe Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 187 of 1957.
\nC.   B.\t Agarwala,  Ravinder Bana. and O. P. Rana,  for\t the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
J. P. Goyal and P. N. Tiwari,  for respondent No. 1 (1).
\nYogeshwar Prasad and M, Veeraappa, for respondent No. 1 (11)
\nThe Judgement of the Court was delivered by
\nShelat, J. This appeal, by certificate, is directed  against
\nthe judgment and decree of the High Court of Allahabad dated
\nAugust 5, 1965 and related to a piece of land together\twith
\nbuildings thereupon including an Akhara (Wrestling  ground).
\nThe  property  is  situate in Kanpur and  bears\t at  present
\nMunicipal No. 26\/72, its original No. being 26\/30.
\nSometime prior to 1830, one Mani Ram, well-known during\t his
\nlife-time  as a wrestler, purchased a groveland\t with  trees
\nstanding  thereon. Whether he pruchased one  such  groveland
\nand  divided it into two, or pruchased tow  such  grovelands
\nand  amalgamated them into one is not quite  certain.  Along
\nwith this land he was possessed of other properties adjacent
\nto  the\t said  groveland. It appears that  being  himself  a
\nwrestler and fond of that sport Mani Ram pruchased the\tsaid
\ngroveland for setting up and main-\n<\/p>\n
812<\/span><\/p>\n
taining\t an Akhara where wrestlers of both Hindu and  Muslim
\ncommunities  could come for wrestling.\tBesides\t the  income
\nfrom  the said groveland, Mani Ram spent large\tamounts\t for
\npromoting  wrestling  and  to  that end\t made  a  number  of
\ndisciples.\n<\/p>\n
He had by his first wife six sons and a seventh son, Mangali
\nPrasad,\t a wrestler of repute, from his second\twife,  Rahas
\nKaur.  By a deed of partition dated June 23, 1830 he divided
\nall  his  properties into eight shares giving one  share  to
\neach  of  his  seven sons and retained\tthe  8th  share\t for
\nhimself\t and the said Rahas Kaur.  This 8th  share  included
\nthe  said groveland on which stood the said Akhara  as\talso
\ncertain other structures.  The Akhara ground was bounded  by
\na compound wall with an archgate to enter into.\t  It appears
\nthat with the object of attracting wrestlers he installed on
\nthe  archgate  an idol of Mahabirji, a Shiv  Lingam  over  a
\nsmall room which stood next to the said gate, and a  tasweer
\nof Hazrat Ali.\tThe two idols and the Tasweer were obviously
\nintended  to give a religious bias to the Akhara, the  first
\ntwo  to\t attract Hindu wrestlers and the  third\t to  attract
\nMuslim\twrestlers.  The said deed of partition\tstated\twith
\nregard\tto the said 1\/8th share and the said groveland\tthat
\nnone  of his seven sons would have any interest or right  in
\nthem as the “one eight (1\/8th) share and the grove, which is
\na  waqf property and which 1, the executant, have taken\t for
\nmyself the executant and my second wedded- wife shall remain
\nowner thereof till our life time.” It would thus appear that
\neven  before  1830 Mani Ram had already dedicated  the\tsaid
\ngroveland  for the purposes of the said Akhara and that\t was
\nwhy  he referred to it as waqf property.  Mani\tRam  managed
\nthe said groveland in the aforesaid manner using the  income
\nthereof for the said Akhara.  On his death the property came
\nunder the management of his widow, the said Rahas Kaur.\t  On
\nMay 12, 1862 Rahas Kaur made a will in which after  reciting
\nthe partition deed of 1830 she stated as follows :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “He  (Mani Ram) dedicated two  grooves-situate
\n\t      in  Philkhana  Bazar,  which  has\t Asthan\t  of
\n\t      Mahadeoji and Mahabir and Akhara and Taswir of
\n\t      Hazrat  Ali-The Akhara and Asthan-up  to\tthis
\n\t      day are continuing as theretofore, and  Mangli
\n\t      Prasad, my son, is unparalleled in  wrestling.
\n\t      In  order\t that it may continue I\t execute  a
\n\t      will that (paper torn) shall be spent over  it
\n\t      as  mentioned in the will of my husband.\t The
\n\t      Akhara   and   Asthan   shall   continue\t  as
\n\t      heretofore.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The will then provided that the management of the Akhara and
\nthe  Asthan should remain with Mangli Prasad and  authorised
\nMangli Prasad to appoint managers after him from the  issues
\nof  Mani  Ram  and thus the management\tshould\tgo  on\tfrom
\ngeneration to generation.\n<\/p>\n
813<\/span><\/p>\n
From  a deed of lease dated June 28, 1862, executed  by\t one
\nMst.  Tejia, it appears that the said groveland was given on
\nlease to her at the annual rent of Rs. 23 by Mangli  Prasad.
\nThe  deed  of  lease also described the\t said  groveland  as
\nhaving\t“Asthan\t of  Mahadeoji and Mahabir  and\t Akhara\t and
\nTaswir of Hazrat Ali” and as having been dedicated to them.
\nIn  1862, one Bansgopal filed suit No. 490 of  1862  against
\nMangli\tPrasad and others for partition and for 1\/3rd  share
\nin  the\t said  groveland.  Mangli  Prasad  filed  a  written
\nstatement therein explaining how the groveland was purchased
\nby  Mani  Ram  from  out of his own funds  and\thow  he\t had
\ndedicated it and referred to (be said partition between Mani
\nRam  and his sons.  He also described how after\t Mani  Ram’s
\ndeath in 1849, the property was administered first by  Rahas
\nKaur  and after her death under the directions of  her\tsaid
\nwill by him.  Mangli Prasad in this written statement denied
\nthat the plaintiff in that suit had any right or interest in
\nthe  said groveland, the same having been dedicated by\tMani
\nRam for the purposes aforesaid.\n<\/p>\n
It appears that after Mangli Prasad’s death his widow, Janki
\nKaur,  entered into possession of the said  property.\tFrom
\nthe  judgment  in First Appeal No. 279 of 1901 of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  of Allahabad dated December 23, 1903 it would  appear
\nthat  Janki Kaur left a will in favour of one  Kishan  Sarup
\nand  on\t the latter claiming the  property  Mangli  Prasad’s
\ndaughter.   Sheodai Kaur, filed a suit for a declaration  of
\nher right of possession to the said property.  That judgment
\nhas  some  bearing on the question as to the nature  of\t the
\nproperty  in  this  appeal as it  clearly  stated  that\t the
\ngroveland  in  question was an endowed\tproperty,  and\tthat
\nherefore,  Sbeodei  Kaur could not claim  that\tproperty  by
\ninheritance,  but was entitled to the possession thereof  as
\nthe manager since Mangli Prasad had not appointed any one as
\nsuch manager.  By this judgment the High Court declared that
\n“as  regards the two, grovelands and Akhara-we declare\tthat
\nthe  plaintiff\tis entitled to be the manager  of  the\tsaid
\nproperty”.   From  the\tdescription in\tthe  decree  of\t the
\nproperty declared by the High Court as the endowed  property
\nthere can remain no room for doubt that the endowed property
\nconsisted  of the two grovelands and the enclosure known  as
\nBuag-Akhara.\n<\/p>\n
The property came into possession of Ishwar Narain, the\t son
\nof  the said Sheodei Kaur, in 1906.  In 1914 he applied\t to
\nthe Kanpur Municipality for permission to build a theatre in
\na part of the Buag-Akhara and in September 1915 he  executed
\na  mortgage to secure repayment of a loan of Rs. 6,000\/-  he
\nhad  borrowed  to, complete the said  theatre.\t Though\t the
\nAkhara and the Asthan continued to be maintained by him,  it
\nappears that he treated the
\n814<\/span>
\nendowed property as belonging to him.  In or about 1937\t the
\nImprovement  Trust  of\tKanpur acquired\t the  whole  of\t the
\nproperty  which consisted of the said two grovelands,  Buag-
\nAkhara and the structures standing thereon and the  property
\nlying  outside and around them.\t The award of the  Collector
\ndated  February 19, 1937 shows that for the entire  property
\ncompensation was calculated at Rs. 94,934\/-.  Ishwar Narain,
\nthereafter,  filed  a  reference under S.  18  of  the\tLand
\nAcquisition  Act.  Pending the reference, a  compromise\t was
\nentered\t into  between\tthe Improvement\t Trust\t,and  Ishwar
\nNarain\tunder  which  in consideration\tof  the\t latter\t not
\npressina the reference the Improvement Trust agreed to\tsell
\nto In the portion corresponding to the said endowed property
\nfor  Rs. 25,000\/-.  In accordance with this compromise,\t the
\nsaid  land  together with the Akhara, the Asthan,  the\tsaid
\ntheatre and certain other structures were conveyed to Ishwar
\nNarain\twho  was  paid Rs. 94,934\/-  less  Rs.\t25,000\/-  as
\ncompensation for the rest of the acquired property.   Ishwar
\nNarain died in 1948 having prior thereto made his will dated
\nNovember 11, 1947 claiming therein that on the death of\t his
\nmother.\t the  said Sheodei Kaur he had become  the  absolute
\nowner of the said property and bequeathed the said property
\nto Balaji and Ram Chandra, the sons of his sister,  Narayani
\nDevi,  with directions to them to maintain the\tsaid  Akhara
\nand the Asthana.\n<\/p>\n
The  principal question which was agitated before the  Trial
\nCourt  was as to the existence of a valid  trust  and  the
\nnature\tof possession of Mani Ram during his life  time\t and
\nhis  successors\t thereafter.   To the  latter  part  of\t the
\nquestions the answer of the Trial Court was that  possession
\nof  the property In question by Mani Ram and those who\tcame
\ninto possession after him was that of managers or  trustees.
\nAs to the first part of the question, the Trial Court held
\n\t      “The  next  part\tof the issue  is  about\t the
\n\t      endowment being valid-It is true that Mani Ram
\n\t      Pande  was not competent to make a  dedication
\n\t      in favour of Hazrat Ali but he had not done so
\n\t      in this case.  The various documents  referred
\n\t      above  do\t not prove that the  dedication\t was
\n\t      made in favour of Hazrat Ali or even Mahadeoji
\n\t      and   Mahabirji.\t  Wherever   there   is\t  an
\n\t      allegation  of the dedication it is  mentioned
\n\t      that  the\t Ahata in question  is\ta  dedicated
\n\t      property and there are “Asthana” of Mahaclevji
\n\t      and Taswir of Hazrat Ali and also an  Akhara.
\n\t      It  means that the dedication was not made  in
\n\t      favour of any juristic person such as  Mahadev
\n\t      Ji  or  Mahabir Ji or even to  the  Akhara  or
\n\t      Hazrat Ali.  No dedication evolve in favour of
\n\t      A\t khara could have been made as the  A  khara
\n\t      was also not a juristic person.  The intention
\n\t      of Mani
\n\t      815<\/span>
\n\t      Ram Pande, as appears from the partition deed,
\n\t      Ex.  6, was that the dedication was in  favour
\n\t      of a trustee or manager, the objects of  which
\n\t      was to maintain the Akhara and the worshipping
\n\t      of  Mahabirji and Hazrat Ali by the  wrestlers
\n\t      of  the two communities, Hindus  and  Muslims.
\n\t      The   main  purpose  of  dedication  was\t the
\n\t      maintenance of the Akhara which meant for\t the
\n\t      wrestlers of both the communities.”\n<\/p>\n
In  this view the Trial Court decreed the suit and  directed
\nthe appellants to hand over possession and pay Rs.  23,000\/-
\nas mesne profits in addition to Rs. 1100 a month as  further
\nmesne profits for the period pending the suit.
\nIn  appeal all against the judgment and decree of the  Trial
\nCourt, the High Court took the view that though there was no
\ndeed  of  dedication available, the evidence on\t record\t was
\nclear that Mani Ram had dedicated the said property, that he
\nand  those who succeeded him right upto Ishwar\tNarain\theld
\nthe  properties\t as  trustees or  managers,  that  the\tsaid
\njudgment  of the High Court of Allahabad of 1903  also\theld
\nthat  the said Sheodei Kuar was to hold the property in\t the
\ncapacity  of a manager, and lastly, that the dedication\t was
\nin favour of the two idols of Shri Mahadeoji and  Mahabirji.
\nIn  this connection the High Court expressed itself  in\t the
\nfollowing terms :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “It may be that establishing an A khara is not
\n\t      a religious or a charitable purpose.  But this
\n\t      was  not the only object of the trust  now  in
\n\t      question.\t There was an Asthan in addition  to
\n\t      the  Akhara.  Dedication of property  for\t the
\n\t      benefit of an idol is recognized in Hindu\t Law
\n\t      as  a  religious\tobject.\t  Mr.  V.  P.  Misra
\n\t      further  contended  that\tMani  Ram  was\t not
\n\t      competent to create a trust for the benefit of
\n\t      Hazrat Ali.  On this point, the learned  Civil
\n\t      Judge observed that Mani Ram was not competent
\n\t      to  make\tdedication in Hazrat  Ali’s  favour.
\n\t      But  Hazrat Ali is not the sole  plaintiff  in
\n\t      this  case.  Sri Mahabirji, Sri Mahadeoji\t and
\n\t      Hazrat   Ali  have  come\tto  Court   as\t co-
\n\t      plaintiffs.  If the dedication in Hazrat Ali’s
\n\t      favour  cannot be recognised, there should  be
\n\t      no  difficulty in treating the endowment as  a
\n\t      trust   for  the\tbenefit\t of  Mahadeoji\t and
\n\t      Mahabirji.   The\tdecree passed by  the  Trial
\n\t      Court  can  well\tbe treated as  a  decree  in
\n\t      favour  of  Sri Mahadeoji\t and  Sri  Mahabirji
\n\t      only.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  disputing the correctness of the High  Court’s  judgment
\nand  decree,  Dr.  Agarwala for the  appellants\t raised\t the
\nfollowing  contentions\t:  (1) that  the  endowment  was  in
\nrespect\t of the grove and not the groveland, i.e.,  only  of
\nthe income from the trees which
\n816<\/span>
\nexisted during Mani Ram’s life time; (2) that on acquisition
\nof  the\t entire property including the\tAkhara-buag  by\t the
\nImprovement Trust, the trust, in any event, was extinguished
\nand the purchase by Ishwar Narain after the acquisition from
\nthe  Improvement  Trust\t did not and could  not\t revive\t the
\ntrust;\t(3) that the trust was invalid by reason of  one  of
\nits  objects being the image or tasweer of Hazrat  Ali;\t and
\n(4)  that the dominant object of the trust was to  establish
\nand maintain in perpetuity the said Akhara, which object  in
\nHindu  Law is neither religious nor charitable, and  there-
\nfore, the trust was not a valid trust.\n<\/p>\n
So  far\t as  the  first\t and  the  second  contentions\t are
\nconcerned,  we\thave no difficulty in rejecting\t them.\t The
\ndocuments  on record as also the evidence as to the  conduct
\nof  Mani  Ram  and those who held the  property after  him
\nclearly\t show that Mani Ram dedicated the groveland and\t not
\nmerely the trees standing thereon.  The purchase of part  of
\nthe said property after its acquisition was from out of\t the
\ncompensation  received by Ishwar Narain and not out  of\t his
\npersonal  funds,  so that if the trust was in law  a valid
\none,  the property purchased by him out of the\ttrust  funds
\nwould  be stamped with the trust and he would in that  event
\nbe holding that property as a trustee or manager and not  as
\nan owner.\n<\/p>\n
The question, therefore, on which the result of this  appeal
\nwould  turn  is whether the trust created by  Mani  Ram\t and
\nwhich  he  referred to in the said deed of partition  was  a
\nvalid  trust  recognised in Hindu law  as  religious  and\/or
\ncharitable.  The principle of law applicable to trusts\tmade
\nby  Hindus is succinctly stated by this Court in  Saraswathi
\nAmmal  & Anr. v. Raiagopal Ammal-<\/a>(1).  A Hindu\twidow  there
\nsettled\t certain  properties for the following\ttrusts,\t (1)
\nexpenses in connection with the daily pooja of the,  samadhi
\nwhere her husband’s body was entombed in accordance with his
\nlast wishes and the salary of the person conducting the said
\npooja; (2) Gurupooja and annadhanam to be performed annually
\nat the samadhi on the anniversary day of his death; and\t (3)
\nany balance leftover after meeting the above expenses to  be
\nspent for matters connected with education.  The  contention
\nwas that though the first object was not a religious object,
\nthe  performance of Gurupooja and the feeding at the  annual
\nshradha\t and  the utilisation of the balance,  if  any,\t for
\neducational  purposes were the main destination\t of  income,
\nand  therefore, the main object of the settlement  and\tthat
\naccordingly  the dedication was valid.\tThis contention\t was
\nnegatived  and\tit was held that  notwithstanding  that\t the
\nmajor  portion\tof  the\t income may have  to  be  spent\t for
\nGurupooja  and\tannadhanam  in connection  with\t the  annual
\nshradha,  the  dominant purpose of the\tdedication  was\t the
\nsamadhi kainkarivam,
\n(1)  [1954] S.C.R. 277.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    817<\/span><\/p>\n
i.e.,  the  worship  of and at the tomb.   The\tvalidity  or
\notherwise of the dedication, therefore, had to be determined
\non that footing and not as though it was dedication for\t the
\nperformance of the annual shradha on a substantial scale  or
\nfor  annadhanam as such.  It was held that it did  not\tmake
\nany  difference\t that  the surplus was to  be  utilised\t for
\neducational   purposes.\t   That\t surplus   was\t contingent,
\nindefinite   as\t well  as  dependent  on  the\tuncontrolled
\ndiscretion of the manager as to the scale on which he  chose
\nto  perform  the  services at  the  samadhi.   The  dominant
\npurpose of the settlement thus being the pooja of and at the
\nsamadhi, the validity of the settlement had to be decided on
\nthat  footing, namely, whether such trust was recognised  in
\nHindu  law.  On that question the Court relied on a  passage
\nfrom  Mayne’s  Hindu  Law,  ( 1th  ed.)\t at  p.\t 192,  which
\nstates,that  what  are purely religious\t purposes  and\twhat
\nreligious  purposes  will  be charitable  must\tbe  entirely
\ndecided according to Hindu law and Hindu notions.  The Court
\nobserved  that in finding out such purposes, the  insistence
\nof  English law on the element of actual or  assumed  public
\nbenefit\t would not be the determining factor, but the  Hindu
\nnotions of what a religious or a charitable purpose is.\t The
\nCourt  further held that to the extent that any\t purpose  is
\nclaimed\t to be a valid one for perpetual dedication  on\t the
\nground of religious merit though lacking in public  benefit,
\nit must be shown to have a Shastraic basis so far as  Hindus
\nare concerned.\tTo the argument that new religious practices
\nand  beliefs  may  have since then  grown  up  and  obtained
\nrecognition,  the  Court  answered that if they\t are  to  be
\naccepted as being sufficient for valid perpetual  dedication
\nthey  should have obtained wide recognition and\t constituted
\nthe  religious\tpractice of a substantially large  class  of
\npersons and that the heads of religious purposes  determined
\nby  belief  in\tacquisition of\treligious  merit  cannot  be
\nallowed\t to  be\t widely enlarged  consistently\twith  public
\npolicy and the needs of modern society.\t In the result,\t the
\nCourt  confirmed the High Court’s view that  the  settlement
\nwas invalid.\n<\/p>\n
There being no deed of endowment, the intention of Mapi\t Ram
\nin  settling the property in question has to be\t principally
\ngathered  from the said deed of partition and the said\twill
\nof Rahas Kaur, the rest of the documents executed by  Mangli
\nPrasad\t and  others  being  useful  only  in  aid  of\t the
\ninterpretation of that deed of partition and the said  will.
\nThere  can  be no doubt whatsoever that Mani Ram,  being  an
\neminent wrestler and fond of that game, purchased out of his
\nown  money the said groveland for the purpose of setting  up
\nan  Akhara thereon.  The question then would be\t whether  he
\nsettled that property upon trust, and if so, for what trust.
\nAs  already  seen, Mani Ram recorded in the  said  partition
\ndeed  the fact of his having partitioned the  property\tinto
\neight shares,
\n818<\/span>
\nhis  having  given one share to each of his seven  sons\t and
\nhaving retained the eighth share for himself and his  second
\nwife  and  the said groveland as waqf property.\t  The  deed,
\nhowever, does not set out the purpose or purposes for  which
\nthe  said groveland was regarded ‘by him as  waqf  property.
\nBut  it does show that he regarded that property as  already
\ndedicated.   The  purposes for Which the  groveland  was  so
\ndedicated  are to be found in the said will of\tRahas  Kaur,
\nwherein\t she  has in clear terms stated that  Mani  Ram\t had
\ndedicated  the groveland “which has Asin of Mahadeo  Ji\t and
\nMahabir Ji and Aklhara and tasweer of Hazrat All”, that\t the
\nAkhara\tand  the Asthan were upto that dale  maintained\t and
\nthat  they  should continue as heretofore.   The  will\tthus
\nprovides  a key to. the mind of Mani Ram who, as  aforesaid,
\nhall purchased the said property and set up thereon the said
\nwrestling  arena.  Obviously, he was anxious that  wrestlers
\nof  both  Hindu and MUSlim Communities should take  part  in
\nthat  Akhara.\tIt  is\tequally\t obvious  that\tto   attract
\nwrestlers  from both ,lie communities he installed  in\tthat
\nAkhara the tasweer of Hazrat Ali an the idols of Shr Mahadeo
\nand  Mahabir,  the two patron deities  of  wrestling.\tOnce
\nthese idols were put up in the Akhara, their worship had  to
\nbe provided for, it is well-known amongst Hindus that it  is
\nirreligious  to let such idols remain unworshipped.   It  is
\nnot  possible to know from the evidence as to  where  Hazrat
\nAli’s  taswreei,  was installed, but it is  clear  from\t the
\nevidence that the idol of Mahabir Ji was located at the\t top
\nof  the\t aggregate which led into the Akhara and  the  Shiva
\nLingam\twas  installed over a small room built next  to\t the
\ngate.  Clearly, the purpose of- installing the two idols and
\nthe tasweer was to enable the wrestlers to pay their  homage
\nand  salutation\t to the patron deities of  the\tgame  before
\nentering  into the wrestling arena.  The dominant object  of
\nthe  dedication\t was thus the Akhara and the Asthan  of\t God
\nShiva and Mahavir, spoken of in the will of Rahas Kaur,\t was
\nonly an adjunct to the Akhara.\tThere is evidence, no doubt,
\nto  show  that\tpooja and Shringar of  the  two\t idols\twere
\nperformed.   But that apparently was because the idols\tonce
\ninstalled  could not be left unworshippe On these  facts  we
\nare  inclined to take the view that the dominant  object  of
\nthe  dedication\t was the Akhara and the said idols  and\t the
\ntasweer\t were installed only to attract persons of both\t the
\ncommunities  to\t the  Akhara and to  provide  for  them\t the
\nfacility  for  invoking the divine benediction\tbefore\tthey
\nparticipated  in  wresting.   As  laid\tdown  in  Saraswathi
\nAmmal’s case(1), it is on this foot in that the validity  or
\notherwise of the trust has to be considered.
\nIt must be made clear at very outset that although the\twill
\nof  Rahas Kaur provided that persons who are to\t manage\t the
\ntrust  were  to\t be in the first instance  her\tson,  Mangli
\nPrasad, and later
\n(1)  [1954] S.C.R. 277.\n<\/p>\n
819<\/span><\/p>\n
on  those appointed by him from amongst the issues  of\tMani
\nRam,  the  trust was obviously not a private  but  a  public
\ntrust in the sense that it was for the benefit of those, who
\nare  devoted  to  the sport  of\t wrestling  irrespective  of
\nwhether they are Hindus or Muslims.  But the contention\t was
\nthat in spite of the trust being a public trust, it was\t not
\none recognised by Hindu law as being a religious and \/ or  a
\ncharitable one.\t As stated earlier, the fact that the Akhara
\nidols installed in it makes no difference as the  dedication
\nwas the Akhara and not the or the tasweer of Hazrat Ali.
\nA  dedication  of property for a religious or  a  charitable
\npurpose can according Hindu law, be validly made orally\t and
\nno to create an endowment except where it is (cf.   Menakuru
\nDasaratharami  Reddi v. Duddukuru Subba Rao<\/a>(1).\t It  can  be
\nmade by a gift inter vivo or by a bequest or by a ceremonial
\nor   relinquishment.   An  appropriation  of  property\t for
\nspecific  religious  or charitable purposes is all  that  is
\nnecessary  for a valid dedication.  As stated by  the  Privy
\nCouncil in Vidyavaruthi v. Balusami Ayyar(2), a trust in the
\nsense in which it is understood in English law is unknown in
\nthe Hindu system.  Hindu piety found expression in gifts  to
\nidols,\tto  religious  institutions  and  for  all  purposes
\nconsidered  meritorious\t in the Hindu social  and  religious
\nsystem.\t Therefore, although Courts in India have for a long
\ntime adopted the technical meaning of charitable trusts\t and
\ncharitable purposes which the Courts in England have  placed
\nupon  the  term ‘charity’ in the Statute of  Elizabeth,\t and
\ntherefore,  all purposes which according to English law\t are
\ncharitable  will  be charitable under Hindu law,  the  Hindu
\nconcept of charity is so comprehensive that there are  other
\npurposes  in  addition which are  recognised  as  charitable
\npurposes.   Hence,  what are purely religious  purposes\t and
\nwhat religious purposes will be charitable purposes must  be
\ndecided according to Hindu notions and Hindu law.
\nAs  observed  by Mukherjea in Hindu Law\t and  Religious\t and
\nCharitable  Trust  (2nd\t ed.), p. 11, there is\tno  line  of
\ndemarcation  in\t the  Hindu  system  between  religion\t and
\ncharity.   Indeed, charity is regarded as part of  religion,
\nfor,  gift  both for religious and charitable  purposes\t are
\nimpelled   by  the  desire  to\tacquire\t  religious   merit.
\nAccording to Pandit Prannath Saraswati these fell under\t two
\nheads,\tIstha  and Purta.  The former meant  sacrifices\t and
\nsacrificial gifts and the latter meant charities.  Among the
\nIstha acts are Vedic sacrifices, gifts to the priests at the
\ntime  of such sacrifices, preservations of Vedas,  religious
\nausterity, rectitude, Vaisvadev sacrifices and\thospitality.
\nAmong  the, Purta acts are construction and  maintenance  of
\ntemples,  tanks,  wells,  planting of  ground  had  the\t two
\ndominant  object  of worship of the idols  A  dedication  of
\npose can, according writing is necessary created by a will.
\n(1) [1957] S.C.R. 1122 at 1128,
\n(2) (1921) (48) I.A. 302 at 311.\n<\/p>\n
L5Sup.CI-7
\n820<\/span>
\ngroves,\t gifts\tof food, dharamshalas, places  for  drinking
\nwater,\trelief of the sick, and promotion of  education\t and
\nlearning.  (cf.\t  Pandit Prannath Saraswati’s Hindu  Law  of
\nEndowments,  1897, pp. 26-27) Istha and Purta are  in  fact
\nregarded as the common duties of the twice born class.\t(cf.
\nPandit Saraswati, p. 27)
\nThough\tPandit Saraswati sought to enumerate from  different
\ntexts Various acts which would fall under either of the\t two
\nCategories  of\tIshta  and  Purta,  no\texhaustive  list  of
\ncharitable  purposes  can  be possible\tas  the\t expressions
\n‘Ishta’\t and  ‘Purta’ themselves are elastic  and  admit  no
\nrigid\tdefinition.   As  times\t advance,  more\t  and\tmore
\ncategories of acts considered to be beneficial to the public
\nwould  be recognised depending on the needs and\t beliefs  of
\nthe  time. (cf.\t Mukherjea, p. 74).  Neither the Statute  of
\nElizabeth  nor\tthe Law relating to Superstitious  Uses\t was
\napplied\t at  any time to India.\t Consequently,\tthe  English
\ndecisions based on one or the other of these statutes  would
\nnot  be\t applicable nor can they be  commensurate  with\t the
\nconditions prevailing in India, though those decisions might
\nundoubtedly be of some guidance.\n<\/p>\n
Is  then  the  trust for the maintenance and  up-keep  of  a
\nwrestling  ground  a valid charitable trust ?  The  evidence
\nshows that Mani Ram, being personally fond of wrestling\t had
\na number of disciples and attracted several wrestlers to the
\nAkhara.\t  But that, according to Rahas Kaur’s will,  he\t did
\nout  of\t his  own  love for this  particular  sport  and  by
\nspending  large\t amounts out of his own\t moneys.   The\tonly
\nthing which seems to have been done by his successors was to
\nhold wrestling tournaments and award prizes to the  success-
\nfuloges\t out of the income of the property and\tto  maintain
\nthe Akhara.  It may be that people might have come to  these
\ntournaments  and  even practised wrestling but there  is  no
\nevidence  whatsoever  that  wrestling  was  taught  or\t its
\nknowledge  was\timparted to those wishing to  know  it.\t  At
\nbest,  therefore,  it can be said that\tby  maintaining\t the
\nAkhara\tand  holding therein the tournaments  wrestling\t was
\nsought\tto be encouraged or fostered.  But there is  nothing
\nto  show that the promotion of a particular game either\t for
\nentertainment of the public or as encouragement to those who
\ntake  part  in it has ever been recognised as  a  charitable
\ntrust  according  to  Hindu law.   Neither  Pandit  Prannath
\nSaraswati, nor Mukherjea, nor Mayne suggests in his treatise
\nthat a dedication for the promotion of a particular game  or
\nsport is a charitable trust under the Hindu law.
\nIn  Englalnd it is held not to be so, of course\t within\t the
\nscope  of  the\tstatute\t of  Elizabeth\tas  interpreted\t  in
\nCommissioners  for  Special Purposes of the  Income  Tax  v.
\nPemsel(l).   Thus, In re Notage, Jones v. Palmer(2), a\tgift
\nfor encouraging the sport of
\n(1) [1891] A.C.\t\t (2) [1895] Ch. 649
\n821<\/span>
\nyatch-racing was not upheld as a charitable trust, though as
\nLindley, L.J., remarked every healthy sport is good for\t the
\nnation.\t In  re\t Hadden, Public Trustee\t v.  More(1),  while
\nacknowledging  the principle laid down in In  re  Notage(2),
\nthe court held that a trust providing for recreation grounds
\nand  parks for the benefit of working classes was  valid  on
\nthe  ground, however, that such uses were intended  for\t the
\nhealth and welfare of the working classes.  So too, in In re
\nMarietta, Mariette v. Governing Body of Aldenham  School(3),
\nwhere  bequests\t for building squash racket courts  or\tsome
\nsimilar\t purpose within the school premises and for a  prize
\nto the winner in the school athletics were held valid on the
\nground\tof its being essential in a school of learning\tthat
\nthere  should  be  organised  games as\tpart  of  the  daily
\nroutine.  It is clear from the judgment of Eve, J., that  he
\nupheld\tthe bequest on the ground not of promoting  athletic
\ngames  but on the ground that the object of the charity\t was
\neducation  in  the school and that training  in\t such  games
\nwould  be part of the educational activities of the  school.
\nThere is, however, one decision of a marginal nature. if  we
\nmay  say so, namely, in In re Daley v. Lloyds Bank  Ltd.(1),
\nwhere a gift for holding an annual chess tournament  limited
\nto boys and young men under the age of 21 years residing  in
\na particular locality was upheld. But that was done after  a
\ngood deal of hesitation and only by basing it on the  ground
\nthat  training\tof  youth  in a game  of  skill\t which\talso
\nrequired concentration was part of their education.
\nComing to the cases in India, the decisions in the  Trustees
\nof  the Tribune Press v. Commissioner of Income-tax(5),\t All
\nIndia Spinners Association v. Commissioner of  Income-tax(6)
\nand  the  Cricket  Association, Bengal\tv.  Commissioner  of
\nIncome-tax, Calcutta(1) were all cases under s. 4(3) (i)  of
\nthe  Income-tax\t Act,  1922  and  therefore  would  have  no
\nrelevance to the present case arising, under the Hindu Law.
\nThe decisions above referred to thus lay down a\t distinction
\nbetween\t cases\twhere the object of the dedication  was\t the
\npromotion  of  games as part of the education of  those\t who
\nparticipate in them and cases where the object was promotion
\nof games simplicitor, the former only having been upheld  on
\nthe  ground that such promotion or encouragement is part  of
\nthe  educational  training and the latter  not\thaving\tbeen
\nupheld.\t  In  the case of  Cricket  Association,  Bengal(7),
\nthough arrangements of cricket tournaments of both  domestic
\nand foreign teams were said to promote and foster love for a
\nhealthy game, s. 4(3) (i) was held not to be applicable.
\n(1) [1932] (1) Ch. 133.\t     (2) [18951 Ch. 649.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1915] (2) Ch. 284.\t     (4) (1945) 114 L.J. Ch. 1.
\n(5) 661.A. 241.\t\t     (6) I.L.R. [1945] Bom. 153.
\n(7)  A.I.R. 1959 Cal. 296.\n<\/p>\n
822<\/span><\/p>\n
On  a  reading of the relevant documents on record  and\t the
\noral  testimony led by the parties we are not in a  position
\nto agree with the High Court that the trust created by\tMani
\nRam was a religious trust in favour of the two idols of Lord
\nShiva and Mahabir Ji.  As aforesaid, our conclusion is\tthat
\nthe  dominant  intention of the settlor was to\tset  up\t and
\nmaintain  an Akhara, the said two idols as also the  tasweer
\nof  Hazrat Ali having been installed there only\t to  attract
\nwrestlers of the two communities.  That being the  position,
\nreluctant  though we are, particularly in view of  the\tfact
\nthat  the  said\t Akhara has been  maintained  for  nearly  a
\ncentury, we find it extremely difficult, in the absence,  of
\nany  authority,\t textual or by way of a precedent,  to\thold
\nthat  the dedication in question was for either a  religious
\nor  charitable purpose as recognised by Hindu Law.  For\t the
\nreasons aforesaid we are constrained to allow the appeal and
\nset aside the judgment and decree passed by the High  Court.
\nIn  the circumstances of the case, however, we\tconsider  it
\njust  that there should be no order as to costs.   Collector
\nwill be at liberty to recover the Court fees payable in\t the
\nplaint from the next friend of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
G.C.\t\t    Appeal allowed.\n823<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And … on 15 October, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 458, 1970 SCR (2) 809 Author: Shelat Bench: Shelat, J.M. PETITIONER: PT. RAM CHANDRA SHUKLA Vs. RESPONDENT: SHREE MAHADEOJI, MAHABIRJI AND HAZRAT ALIKANPUR & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/10\/1969 BENCH: SHELAT, J.M. BENCH: […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-85303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And ... on 15 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And ... on 15 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-17T07:08:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"33 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And … on 15 October, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T07:08:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969\"},\"wordCount\":5271,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969\",\"name\":\"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And ... on 15 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-10-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-17T07:08:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And … on 15 October, 1969\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And ... on 15 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And ... on 15 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-17T07:08:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"33 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And … on 15 October, 1969","datePublished":"1969-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T07:08:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969"},"wordCount":5271,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969","name":"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And ... on 15 October, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-10-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-17T07:08:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/pt-ram-chandra-shukla-vs-shree-mahadeoji-mahabirji-and-on-15-october-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Pt. Ram Chandra Shukla vs Shree Mahadeoji, Mahabirji And … on 15 October, 1969"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85303","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=85303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/85303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=85303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=85303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=85303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}