According to the case of the plaintiffs, the grant, as a matter of fact, was a Dharmottar grant though called Brahmottar in the Copper Plate.
They Were As to whether the suit is hit by section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and 2 .
The appeal of the defendants was companysequently dismissed.
The area companyered by Nispi Kheraj or Nisf Kheraj was 243 bighas.
An appeal was taken to the Court of the Additional District Judge, Lower Assam.
According to the allegations in the plaint this grant was made by the King in the name of one Gadapani Bhattacharjya for the establishment of a Satra Vaishnavic institution .
It was made for the propagation Of Nama Dharma and for companytinuance of Sraban Kirtan Dharma.
Gadapani Bhattachariya became the full proprietor and the defendants were his descendants and they had been in peaceful possession in that capacity all along.
This was companyfirmed by the British Government.
It was alleged that some of the plaintiffs were still living in the land companyered by the Nispi kheraj Patta.
If it is necessary the plaintiffs will file a scheme case afterwards.
In the written statement the position taken up was that the disputed land was number Dharmottar.
After the British rule companymenced there was an enquiry in which the grandson of the original grantee Gadapani Bhattachariya made a claim of 83 puras of land with 10 bighas of Sat Sangee Satra.
In the Copper Plate the grant was termed as Brahmottar.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated May 30, 1960 of the Assam High Court in Second Appeal No.
On that issue it was held that the suit property was Brahmotttar and number Dharmottar.
The grant was companytemporaneous with the establishment of the Satra.
Paragraph 4 of the written statement was in these, terms It is true that these defendants are the absolute owners in respect of the disputed land.
In the opinion of the Additional Distt.
1, the suit was dismissed .
The Sat Sangee Satra to be established on the basis of this grant was known as Bhanukuchi Satra along with a Nam ghar.
Though it is taken for granted that the disputed land was gifted to the Satsangi Satra in ancient time yet by an order of the British Government the nature of that Dharmottar land was extinguished.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover, J. This is an appeal by certificate front the judge ment of the Assam and Nagaland High Court arising out of a suit which was filed as far back as May 1948.
Hence it is necessary to obtain a decree after a declaration from the Civil Court and with the said end and view it is necessary to obtain possession from the Court on behalf of the plaintiffs.
There by all the claims and the arrangements of the former ruler over the land etc.
The purpose for which the grant was made was specifically stated to be for the propagation of Sraban Kirtan Dharma.
The English had companyquered this Assam province.
The learned Additional Distt.
of the companyntry were extinguished and the British Government also issued an order to that effect.
The relief which was claimed was for a declaration that the disputed land was a gift to the Bhanukuchi Sat Sang as mentioned in paragraph 12 and for possession.
Learned companynsel for the plaintiffs ha,, sought to raise the same points which were agitated before the High Court.
Only two points were raised before the High Court.
The appeal was allowed and a decree was granted for a declaration that the disputed land was the Dharmottar property of the Bhanukuchi Sat Sangee Satra and that the plaintiffs were the Bhakats of that Satra having a right to perform religious functions prescribed for them in the Satra.
Judge on the relevant passage.
Paragraph 12 of the plaint may be reproduced In fact the land described in the Schedule of disputed patta is the Dharmottar land gifted to the Bhanukuchi Satsangi Satra.
Let him occupy the land from generation to generation after propagating the Sraban Kirtan Dharma.
But for his appointment as Medhi and the establishment of the Satra, the grant to Gadapani would have been a personal one.
After companysidering the entire evidence, he came to the companyclusion that there was a Satra at Bhanukuchi and that the grant was to the Satra and number to Gadapani in his personal capacity.
The suit for possession, however, was dismissed.
1, the Copper Plate, has been companyrectly interpreted to hold that the original grant created by the Ahom King was of the nature of Dhannottar grant or a religious trust for the benefit of the Satra or that it was merely a personal gift in favour of Gadapani Bhattachariya who was the original Medhi or the high priest named in regards to the Satra created by the Copper Plate?
The word Brahmottar had been qualified by Punyarthe which meant for piety.
The original grant was in respect of 79 puras of land which would be equivalent to 316 bighas.
The defendants filed an appeal to the High Court.
As to whether Ext.
Have the plaintiffs locus standi to bring the suit ?
Is the disputed land a Dharmottar property and absolutely endowed for religious purposes as alleged?.
It was asserted by the plaintiffs that the defendants were interfering with their rights relating to the Satra and were also number properly repairing the Nam ghar etc.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It was further pleaded that the plaintiffs had numberlocus standi to file the suit.
It was rent free.
It was a property gifted to late Gadapani Brahmin, the predecessor of the defendants.
The Trial Court found that the suit was number maintainable owing to number compliance with the provisions of section 92, Code of Civil Procedure.
During the current 30 year settlement the Nispi Kheraj land was shown to companyer an area of 230 bighas odd and the suit was companyfined to that area.
During the demarcation survey of 1881, the area was reduced to 304 bighas and in the survey and settlement of 1884 85 it was shown as 313 bighas roughly.
The learned Judge referred to the relevant portion of the grant which according to him was to be translated as follows Be it known to all that the Satsangi Satra of 10 Bhakats is established.
As regards the companyrect interpretation of the relevant passage on the Copper Plate by which the grant was created, the High Court agreed with the interpretation put by the Additional Distt.
The words of the grant indicated that it had been made for some religious purpose for which the Satra was established.
In the subsequent settlement of 1905 06, the land was assessed to half revenue, known as Nispi Kheraj.
The main companytroversy arises out of a grant on a Copper Plate made by Ahom King Maharaj Sibasingha of some landed property in the year 1663 Saka Era companyresponding to 1741 A. D. The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs in a representative capacity as Bhakats.
The plaintiffs, therefore by virtue of the original grant, were entitled to file a suit.
The grant was, therefore, number a personal grant.
Judge appears to have been fully companyversant with the various Satras which were to be found in Assam and with the manner in which they were created.
It was further held by him that the establishment of the Satra and the creation of the office of the Bhakats was companytemporaneous so far as the present case was companycerned.
The plaintiffs claimed that they were the descendants of the 10 Bhakats who were mentioned in the Copper Plate creating the endowment, the name of the Satra being Sat Sangee Satra.
151 of 1958.
It was denied that there was any Sat Sangee Satra of Bhanukuchi.
The original text was quoted as agreed to by companynsel for both the parties and its English translation was given as follows The King has for the purpose of earning merit for himself and his brother, made this Brahmottar grant companysisting of the lands as mentioned herein along with three Paiks and ten families of Bhakats to Gadapani Brahman who is appointed to be the Medhi high priest of the Sat Sangi Satra.
1 a , 2 a, , 3, 8 and 19.
Gadapani Bhattacharjya was a good religious minded Brahmin and the Ahom King, for the advantage of preaching religion, gifted the land to him as Niskar Brahmottar generation to generation.
He held that the suit did number fall within section 92, Code of Civil Procedure, and was therefore, maintainable.
Gadapani Brahmin is made the Medhi of the said Satra and the lands are granted to him as Brahmottar for religious purposes.
1273 of 1966.
Shikumar Ghose, for respondents Nos.
N. Mukherjee, lot the appellants.
In view of the finding on issue No.
Defendants 1 to 20 were alleged to be the heirs of Gadapani Bhattacharjya.
