Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The crucial question for determination in the suit, therefore, was as to whether there was any dedication to Lord Shiva, or were the properties personal properties of the common ancestor of the appellants and the respondents second party. There was also an alternative claim out forward by the respondent to the effect that, at best, the properties could be said to have been only partially dedicated, in so far as it might have been expected that, after the fulfilment of their personal necessities and reauirements, expenses over the maintenance of Lord Shiva might also be made. In such an event, it was contended, all that could follow in law was that the properties would stand charged with the maintenance of the aforesaid deity, without detracting from their character of partibility or alienability. The plaintiffs' suit was decreed by the trial Court on a finding that there had been a dedication of the properties in suit to Lord Shiva. The defence case, however found favour with the lower appellate Court, which did not agree with the finding recorded by the trial Court and held, in its turn, that there was no complete dedication, but only a partial or qualified dedication and that, in such a case, the properties descended and were alienable and partible in the ordinary way.

5. Mr. K. K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the finding of the lower appellate Court with regard to the Partial or qualified nature of the dedication was not binding on this Court, as the proper inference from the term 'Shivottar' in the relevant entries in the cadastral survey papers had not been deduced by the Court of appeal below, and, in support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkishorelal v. Kamalnarayan. (AIR 1963 SC 890) and a Bench decision of this Court in Somar Puri v. Shyam Narain Gir, (AIR 1954 Pat 586).

9. The lower appellate Court, having, on an appraisal of the entire evidence, albeit entries in the survey papers (Ext. 1) and two petitions purported to have been filed by the plaintiffs before the survey authorities (Exts. C and C/I). held that the case of complete dedication to Lord Shiva had not been made out. I do not see any justification for interfering with such a finding both on the around that the inference is not vitiated by any error of law and is, therefore, beyond the competence of this Court to interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also for the reason that even on merits I do not feel persuaded to differ from the view taken by the final Court of fact; nor can the conclusion of the lower appellate Court, as a proposition of law be said to be in any way erroneous, for, to quote Mulla from his Hindu Law (Thirteenth Edition). Section 408 at page 440. "If the dedication is Partial, a trust in favour of the charity is not created but a charge in favour of the charity is attached to. and follows, the property which retains its original private and secular character". The secular character and that of alienability, therefore, still attach to the properties in suit, and the lower appellate Court has rightly dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.