1939 (8) TMI 29 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the immovable property was dedicated absolutely for religious purposes or merely subjected to a charge.
2. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Absolute Dedication vs. Charge:
The primary question in this appeal is whether the immovable property in question was dedicated absolutely for religious purposes or merely subjected to a charge. The respondents argued that their grandfather dedicated the property to the deity Sri Tholasingaperumal Swami in 1890, constituting himself as the trustee. The grandfather's application to the Deputy Collector in 1890 for an 'A' form certificate, which was granted, indicated that the property was set apart as a perpetual gift to the deity. The deed executed by the grandfather as trustee confirmed this dedication. The appellants contended that the will of the grandfather, dated 26th November 1892, suggested that the property was only charged for religious services, not absolutely dedicated. However, the court examined the will and found that the provisions therein supported the view of an absolute dedication. The will provided detailed instructions on the use of the property's income for religious purposes, indicating that the property was intended to be used exclusively for those purposes. The court concluded that the grandfather had divested himself of all personal interest in the property, completing the dedication, and thus the appellants acquired no title to the property.

2. Law of Limitation:
The second issue is whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation. The appellants argued that Article 134 of the Limitation Act, as it stood before its amendment in 1929, applied, which provided a twelve-year limitation period from the date of transfer. The suit was filed more than twelve years after the mortgages were entered into. However, the court noted that the property was conveyed to the appellants on 11th October 1924, and the suit was filed within twelve years of this date. Additionally, the court referred to the Full Bench decision in Mulla Veetil Seeti Kutti v. K.M.K. Kunhi Pathumma, which held that Article 134 did not apply to transfers where possession was not taken by the transferee. Since the appellants were not put in possession until 1924, the suit was not barred by limitation.

Conclusion:
The court held that the property was dedicated absolutely for religious purposes and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the first and second respondents, and the fourth and fifth respondents were granted costs out of the trust property.