1909 (7) TMI 1 - Other - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the mouzah is debuttar or dewattar property.
2. Whether the Mohant had the power to grant a permanent lease of the mouzah.
3. The validity of the leases claimed by the respondents.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The litigation concerned the status of a mouzah named Gorfalbari, whether it was debuttar or dewattar property. The grant in question was made to the Mohant, and although ambiguously expressed, it was evident that the gift was intended for the service of specific idols. The income from the mouzah had always been utilized for the maintenance of the idols' service. The Subordinate Judge affirmed that the mouzah was debuttar property, dedicated to the worship of the idols represented by the Mohant.

Issue 2:
Regarding the Mohant's power to grant a permanent lease of the mouzah, it was established that the Mohant's authority to alienate debuttar property was restricted to cases of unavoidable necessity. The grant of the permanent lease in 1860 and subsequent leases lacked justification of necessity, as required by law. The leases were deemed valid only during the lifetime of the grantors, and there was no evidence to support the continuation of the leases beyond the grantors' lifetimes.

Issue 3:
The High Court had based its decision on the question of limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The contention that a mokurari lease equated to a conveyance in fee simple was refuted, emphasizing that a lease in perpetuity did not transfer absolute ownership. The leaseholders were not considered purchasers under the Act, and the leases were deemed valid only during the lifetime of the grantors. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the Subordinate Judge's decree restored, with costs to be borne by the resisting respondents.

In conclusion, the Privy Council ruled in favor of declaring the mouzah as debuttar property dedicated to idol worship and limiting the Mohant's power to grant leases to cases of unavoidable necessity. The leases claimed by the respondents were deemed valid only during the lifetime of the grantors, and the wider interpretation of the Limitation Act by the High Court was not upheld.