Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. A bathing ghat on the banks of the Ganges at Benares is a subject-matter to be considered upon the principles of the Hindu law. If dedicated to such a purpose, land or other property would be dedicated to an object both religious and of public utility, just as much as is a dharamsala or a math, notwithstanding that it be not dedicated to any particular deity. But it cannot from this consideration be at once concluded that in any particular case there has been a dedication in the full sense of the Hindu law which involves the complete cessation of ownership on the part of the founder and the vesting of the property in the religious institution or object. There may or may not be some presumption arising in respect of this from particular circumstances of a given case, but, in the absence of a formal and express endowment evidenced by deed or declaration, the character of the dedication can only be determined on the basis of the history of the institution and the conduct of the founder and his heirs. That the dedication of property to religious or charitable uses may be complete or partial is as true under the Benares as under the Bengal school of Hindu law. Partial dedication may take place not only where a mere charge is created in favour of an idol or other religious object, but also, as Mr. Mayne in his well-known work was careful to notice, "where the owner retained the property in himself but granted the community or part of the community an easement over it for certain specified purposes" (Hindu Law and Usage, 6th edn., 1900, Section 438, p. 567). In Jaggamoni Dasi v. Nilmoni Ghosal (1882) I.L.R. 9 Cal. 75 the plaintiff's ancestor had built a temple and bathing ghat, as well as a room and another ghat for use by persons at the point of death. The defendant having used the ghat for the landing of goods, Field J. observed (p. 76):--

Another passage deals with the right of the defendants as follows:--
The ghat having been dedicated to the public, the defendants could not have acquired any right under any grant or prescription which might interfere with or limit, the rights of the public. As already stated, there is no difference in principle between the dedication of a ghat to the public and the dedication of a highroad.

11. Now there is the very broadest distinction between saying that the plaintiff's ownership is not absolute because it is qualified by the public's right of user for purposes of bathing, and saying that the plaintiff is not the owner at all, but a mere mutawalli in whom nothing vests because her predecessor had dedicated the ghat in the full sense of divesting himself completely of all interest therein. When in English law the owner of land is said to have dedicated it for a highway it is not intended or implied that his right of ownership has been divested. On the contrary if any member of the public exceeds the permitted user, a right of action in trespass arises to the dedicator or his successor in title by virtue of his ownership and possession: St. Marry, Newington v. Jacobs (1871) L.R. 7 Q.B. 47 and Harrison v. Duke of Rutland [1893] 1 Q.B. 142. Dedication in the full sense known to the Hindu law is a different matter. In the usual case of complete dedication made to an idol, for example, the property ceases altogether to belong to the donor and becomes vested in the idol as a juristic person. Complete relinquishment by the owner of his proprietary right is however by no means the only form of dedication known to the Hindu law and is very different from anything that could ordinarily be inferred from the public user of a highway. From the standpoint of the Hindu law "it is not essential to a valid dedication that the legal title should pass from the owner nor is it inconsistent with an effectual dedication that the owner should continue to make any and all uses of the land which do not interfere with the uses for which it is dedicated." The Chairman, Hawrah Municipality v. Khetra Kristo Mitter (1906) 10 C.W.N. 1044, s.c. 4 C.L.J. 343, (per Mookerjee J., at p. 348). When the dedication is only partial the property in some parts of India might none the less in common parlance be described as devottar; but whether it be charged with a sum of money for the worship of an idol or be subjected to a right of limited user on the part of the public, it would descend and be alienable in the ordinary way; "the only difference being" as Mr. Mayne observes in the passage already referred to in this judgment "that it passes with the charge upon it." (Hindu, Law and Usage, 6th edn., 1900, Section 438, p. 567).