Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

On issue No.7 learned trial court was pleased to hold that the orders passed by the various courts in the years .1941, 1951 and 1966 were binding on the plaintiff. On issue No.8 it was held that the suit was not barred by the provisions of section 92 of the Code, whereas issue No.9 was decided against defendant No.4.

Consequently, the suit was ordered to be dismissed. Plaintiff preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree. In the appeal learned lower appellate court reversed the findings by holding that there were large number of authorities upholding the right of partial dedication. Learned lower appellate court held that the documents Ex.PW 4/8 and PW 4/9 showed that the dedication of property was to the Panchayat Brahamnan for use of building as Dharamshala and in Ex.PW 4/9 the rights of the descendants of founder had been kept in tact and it is Panchayat Brahmnan which had to deal with the property of Dharamshala. Learned lower appellate court also took note of paragraph 407 of Hindu Law by Mulla and reversed the finding of the learned trial court by observing as under:-

In view of above findings, learned lower appellate court was pleased to hold that the learned trial court was not right in holding that there could be no partial dedication. Thus, the findings on issues No.1, 3 & 4 were ordered to be reversed.

Finding on issue No.2 was affirmed for want of challenge. On issue No.5 learned lower appellate court was pleased to hold that there was evidence that defendants have been leasing out some property attached with Dharamshala while the plaintiff has been managing for repairs of the building and further that the descendants of deceased Devi Sahai and others have constructed rooms in the building in question. Therefore, it was held that there was no admission by the plaintiff that the possession had been taken from them by the respondents. Dharamshala was said to be in possession of the strangers who come to the place and stay there for some time and go back. Thus, the finding on issue No.5 was also reversed.

In support of the first substantial question of law, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants contends that learned lower appellate court committed an error in reversing the findings of the learned trial court holding that the partial dedication was permissible under Hindu Law. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that if the dedication is partial, a public trust is not created. For creation of public trust, the dedication has to be complete.

The reading of the above judgment would show that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that dedication of property for religious or charitable purpose can be either complete or partial. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that partial dedication is not permissible as no public trust can be formed, cannot be accepted.

Learned lower appellate court rightly held by relying upon the paragraph of Hindu Law by Mulla that the dedication could be partial.