Case No: Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 212 of 1986
Judge: Shahabuddin Ahmed ,
Court: Appellate Division ,,
Advocate: Mr. Mahbubey Alam,S.R. Pal,,
Citation: 42 DLR (AD) (1990) 59
Case Year: 1990
Appellant: Hara Kumar Kapali alias Bepari
Respondent: Sreemati Sundari Kapali
Subject: Hindu Law, Family Law,
Delivery Date: 1989-6-6
Supreme Court of Bangladesh
Badrul Haider Chowdhury, J.
Shahabuddin Ahmed, J.
M.H. Rahman, J.
A.T.M. Afzal, J.
Hara Kumar Kapali alias Bepari
Sreemati Sundari Kapali and others
June 6, 1989.
The Hindu Law
Dedication for religious or charitable purposes, includes dedication to hospital, university and other educational institutions since these are intended for the benefit and welfare of the Society as a whole and in context of a modern progressive Society, an educational institution is regarded as a temple of learning………………………(3)
S.R. Pal, Senior Advocate instructed by Habibur Rahman, Advocate-on-Record. — For the Petitioner.
Mahbubey Alam, Advocate instructed by Md. Sajjadul Huq, Advocate-on-Record. — For the Respondent No. 1.
Not represented —Respondent Nos. 2-3(a).
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 212 of 1986.
(From the judgment and order dated 21.5.86 passed by the High Court Division, Barisal Bench, in Civil Revision No. 785 of 1982.)
Shahabuddin Ahmed J.
1. Plaintiff-petitioner is a reversioner under the Hindu Law. His suit challenging the alienation by a widow of the property left by her late husband has been dismissed by the appellate Court on setting aside the trial Court's judgment. The High Court Division in revision did not interfere with the appellate Court's decision. The impugned order of the High Court Division is dated 21 May 1986 made in Civil Revision No. 785 of 1982 (Barisal).
2. Widow Manikko Bewa sold property No.1 Schedule 'Ka' by a sale-deed dated 19 March 1926 to the predecessor of respondent No.1. She gifted away property No. 3 in Schedule 'Kha' by a Deed of Gift dated 3 May 1967 to respondent No. 2, a School. She died three years later. Case of the petitioner is that neither of the two alienations was made for any legal necessity and as such these alienations were invalid. The trial Court held in his favour but the appellate Court found that the first alienation under a sale-deed was made for repayment of debt, redemption of a mortgage property and for making pilgrimage to a holy place and as such it was for legal necessity. As to the dedication by the Deed of Gift the appellate Court found that it was for a holy purpose. The learned Single Judge of the High Court Division concurred in this finding.
3. Mr. S.R. Pal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, does not seriously challenge the validity of the transfer by the kabala of the year 1926; but he seriously contends that the dedication in favour of an educational institution is neither for any legal necessity nor for any 'religious or charitable purpose'. He has referred to Mulla's Hindu Law and has tried to show that the dedication to a school docs not come within the ambit of dedication for religious or charitable purpose. The learned Counsel, however, agrees that dedication to a temple of worship is a dedication for a religious purpose. Dedication for religious or charitable purposes, we think, includes dedication to hospital, university and other educational institutions since these are intended for the benefit and welfare of the Society as a whole and in context of a modern progressive Society, an educational institution is regarded as a temple of learning.
4. The petition is dismissed.