M.P.MEHROTRA, J. - (1.) THIS petition arises out of the proceedings under the U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1961. The brief facts are these: a notice under section 10(2) of the said Act or was issued to Swami Radha Krishna Virajman Mandir village Lona, Pargana Konch, district Jalaun. The objections were filed before the Prescribed Authority on behalf of the said tenure-holder through its Prabandhak, Shri Prabhu Dayal. The Prescribed Authority rejected the objections and then the tenure-holder went up in appeal to the District Judge, Jalaun. The appeal was decided by the Civil Judge, Jalaun and the same was allowed. The certified copy of the order of the Prescribed Authority is annexure Al and the certified copy of the order of the appellate court is annexure A2. Now, the State has come up in the instant petition feeling aggrieved with the order of the said appellate Court. The learned Standing Counsel has contended that the appellate court below was not justified in treating the dedication in question as in favour of two separate deities. However, to appreciate this contention it will bi necessary to set out a few facts. It seems one Smt. Janki, widow of Shri Munnu Lal, created the endowment by a registered document dated 15th July, 1900. A true copy of the said document has been filed as annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite-party no. 1 in this petition. In this document it is stated that certain properties, whose details are given in the deed, are being dedicated in favour of Shri Swami Radha Krishna Chandra Maharaj jo Raunak Afroj Diyalo Mauja Lona Pargana Kon Jila Jalaun me hai. The appellate court below held that there were two separate deities of Shri Radha and Shri Krishna in whose favour the dedication was made. A finding has been recorded in these words by the said courts: "Admittedly, there are two separate deities of Shri Radha and Shri Krishna and there are two idols installed in the temple."
(2.) TAKING the said finding into consideration in the only question of law is whether there is anything in the ceiling statute which disentitles the separate deities from claiming separate shares as co-tenure-holders in the endowed property. I must confess to a feeling of some misgiving on this controversy. It is possible to contend that when such dedications are made in favour of, say, Ram Jankiji and Radha Krishan ji, the dedicator is not seeking to create any tenancy in common in the endowed property. It is not as if he is seeking to vest definite shares in the endowed property in favour of separate deities. It may b; contended that in the field of spirituality it is dangerous to import analogies from the mundane sphere. The counting of heads in the spiritual realm may look strange. However, despite these misgivings I have felt that I should not deviate from the uniform case law which has been placed before me and in doing so I have also taken into consideration the fact that the interpretation of a provision in an exproprietory legislation is involved. According to the well-known rules of interpretation a strict interpretation should be put on such pieces of legislation. Now, the Calcutta High Court in three cases has consistently taken a view that a plurality of deities is conceivable when gifts or dedications are made by a donor and it is also proper that that such deities should be considered to be equal co-sharers in specific shares in the gifted or endowed property. It was held that in the case of such gifts and dedications where more than one Hindu deity is involved, each deity should be considered to be one unit and the dedication of gift should be held to be made in the favour of all the deities as tenants-in-common and not as joint tenants. Certain well-known pronouncements of the Privy Council were relied on where the Board laid down that except for a joint Hindu family the concept of joint tenancy is unknown to Hindu law. The relevant cases are as follows: 1. Commr of Inc.-tax v. Putin Behari Dey, 20 I. T. R. 274. 2. Commr. of Inc.-tax v. Aghalata Devi,20 I. T. R. 326. 3. Commr. of Inc. tax v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh,3Q I. T. R. 46. 4. Jugeshwar Narain Deo v. Ram Chandra Dutt, 23 I. A. 37. 5. Baku Rani v. Rajandra Bakhs Singh, 60 I. A. 95. Apart from the aforesaid case law there is a Patna decision also reported in Jyatashwari Kalimata v. Income-tax Commissioner(1) where Manohar Lal, J. took the same view. In this State of case law I have thought it safe to follow the same rather than strike a discordant note. The learned Standing counsel was at pains to emphasise that in 30 I. T. R. 46 (supra) "Shri Shri Radha Shyam Sunder Jew" has been treated as one deity. On the said basis he submitted that in the instant case also Shri Radha Krishna Chandraji should be treated as one deity. I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted. In the Calcutta case the controversy arose under section 41 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The controversy had significance because if it could not be shown that the separate deities held separate determinate shares in the endowed property to the maximum rate of income-tax was liable to be levied. It was, therefore, sufficient in the facts of the said case if it could be pointed out that there was more than one deity involved and the shares of the two deities were determinate and were not undeterminate. The Bench there was so-called upon to consider whether "Shri Shri Radha Shyam Sunder Jew" "really'-consisted of two deities or only one deity becomes even apart from that aspect of the matter there was another deity in the picture in the said case. Therefore, the Bench was not called upon to decide the point which the learned standing counsel says should be taken to have been decided there. In my opinion, the Calcutta case cannot be treated as an authority for the contention which the learned standing Counsel is seeking to place before me. In the said regard, Learned Standing counsel has also, in the alternative, sought to dispute that it was a dedication in favour of Radhaji along with Shri Krishnaji. His conten­tion is that taking into consideration the entire expression Shri Swami Radha Krishna Ji Maharaj' it looks that the dedication was in favour of the male deity alone, namely, Shri Krishnaji and not in favour of the female deity, namely, Radhaji. Again, I must confess that the expression used cannot be held to be absolutely clear and yet I do not think the intention was that it should be a mere dedication in favour of Krishnaji alone for if that were so, then there would have been no point in mentioning the name of Radhaji also. Learned Standing counsel has accepted that in the temple in question there was the utmost likelihood of the idol of Radhaji also to bi there. It seems to me that it was a temple wherein the separate idols of Radhaji and Krishnaji are there and in any case, as I pointed out above, a clear finding of the appellate court below is there to the said effect. Once, as I stated above, the idea of plurality of deities is accepted in relation to the endowment or holding of property, I find it difficult to treat these two deities as one, as is contended for by the learned Standing Counsel. I find a lack of logical consistency in the said contention.
(3.) SHRI Jagdish Swarup, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1, pleaded reliance on the Dictionary meaning of the expression 'Radhakrishna-as given in Sir Monier-Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary, 1976 reprint at page 876. The expression has one of its meanings as 'Radha and Krishna'. It seems to me that the Lexicon also supports the basic contention that the endowment in question should be interpreted to have been made in favour of not a single deity but in favour of two deities, Radhaji and Krishnaji. In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is an apparent error on the face of the record in the judgment of the appellate court below and this petition is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances, there will bi no order as to costs.;