Summary
By Firman of 1934, the then ruler of Bhopal in appreciation of long and distinguished service of Sir Liyaqat Ali gave him, in addition to the grant of pension, the residential house in question and a sum of Rs. 400/- per month out of the Privy Purse of the Ruler.
Liaqat Ali died in March 1947 without leaving any issue or widow. In May, 1947, Syed Mohammed Ali, an heir of Liaqat Ali, who was residing in the said house was forcibly ejected by the Government of Bhopal. In 1957, the present appellants being the heirs of Syed Mohammed Ali filed the present suit against the State of Madhya Pradesh for the recovery of the possession of this house on the ground that the Firman gifted the house absolutely to Liaqat Ali and that they were entitled to inherit the house. The suit was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the ruler's Firman did not confer absolute title on Liaqat Ali, but only a life interest in the house. The Firman inter-alia stated "and you are granted your residential house situated at Bara Mahal Shahjahanabad as a gift." The Trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the suit house was gifted by the ruler to Liaqat Ali absolutely. The High Court on appeal reversed the finding and held that on a true construction of the Firman Liaqat Ali was given only a life estate. On appeal to this Court, it was contended by the appellants :- 1. The last sentence of the Firman declares in unambiguous terms that the grant of the house is an out and out gift.2. Since the grantor and the grantee are Muslims, the gift would under Mohammedan Law have the effect of conveying an absolute heritable estate.3. In a letter addressed by the Chief Engineer and Secretary to the P.W.D., Bhopal, issued in the year 1938, it was mentioned that the building in question was in the possession and ownership of this Liaqat Ali.It was contended by the respondents 1. The grant of the house is not to be disassociated from the pensionary grants.2. The Firman represents a grant made by an absolute ruler in favour of his subject was not a hiba made by one Muslim to another Muslim under Mohammedan Law.3. The grant being a sovereign grant has to be construed strictly against the guarantee and imperfection in the language of the Firman had to be resolved in favour of the Government by reading it as a whole in the light of the surrounding circumstances.Dismissing the appeal,HELD : In case of sovereign grants, where two interpretations are possible, that which is most favourable to the sovereign is to be preferred. [244B-C]HELD FURTHER-The Firman does not convey in precise and unequivocal terms full and absolute ownership of the suit house to the grantee. The Firman does not use the word like heritable estate or that the grant would take effect from generation to generation or grant to the grantee and his heirs. [246F]241 Held further-The Firman has to be read as a whole. It cannot be dissected into three water-tight compartments. It is permissible to consider the surrounding circumstances and the occasion on which this grant was made as legitimate aids to construction of the Firman. The Firman confers threefold benefits; pension, Rs. 400/- per month and beneficial interest in the residential house. The object of conferring these benefits was the same, namely, to secure to the retiring servant a handsome maintenance and comfortable residence for the rest of his life. The surrounding circumstances. namely. the grantee had no issue nor any near relation and was already residing at the suit house, also confirm this interpretation. [246G, 247A-B].HELD FURTHER-The grant is not a hiba made in accordance with Mohammedan Law. It was a grant made by an absolute ruler to his subject. [248D-E].See the full content of this document
Extract
Mohsin Ali & Ors. VS. State Of Madhya Pradesh
PETITIONER: MOHSIN ALI & ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHDATE OF JUDGMENT22/04/1975BENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGHBENCH: SARKARIA, RANJIT SINGHKRISHNAIYER, V.R.GUPTA, A.C.CITATION: 1975 AIR 1518 1975 SCR 240 1975 SCC (2) 122ACT: Sovereign grants-Construction of-Surrounding circumstances as aid of construction-Occasion of grant as aid of construction.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 166 of 1968.From the judgment and decree dated 5th September, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in First Appeal No.1 of 1956.Hardayal Hardy and S. S. Hussain for the appellants.Ram Panjwani, H. S. Parihar and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered bySARKARIA, J.--By a firman, dated October 25, 1934, Nawab Sir Hamidullah Khan, the then Ruler of Bhopal State, in appreciation of the long and distinguished services of Sir Liaqat Ali, gave to the latter, in addition to the grant of pensions, the residential house in question as "inayat ataa". Sir Liaqat who was already residing in this house, continued therein till he died, issueless and widowless, in March 1947. One Syed Mohammed Ali who...
See the full content of this document