9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the defendants' title against the debuttar created by the Will. 2. Whether the suit was premature. 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the defendants' title against the debuttar created by the Will: The Subordinate Judge held that the defendants had not acquired a title operative against the debuttar created by the Will. The court emphasized that Section 4 of the Probate and Administration Act establishes that the executor or administrator is the legal representative for all purposes, and all the property of the deceased vests in them. Section 12 renders valid all intermediate acts of the executor from the death of the testator. The court noted that the dedication of the properties was of the strictest character, making them inalienable and not liable for personal debts of the heirs. The properties vested in the deity, Iswar Lakshmi Narayan, upon the testator's death, and neither his widows nor his adopted son could create a valid title by the mortgage executed on 18th September 1901. The court concluded that the defendants' title could not be supported in derogation of the debuttar created by the testator. 2. Whether the suit was premature: The appellant argued that the suit was premature because the order for Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed was not made until 30th July 1917, and the Letters were not issued until 25th February 1918, long after the suit was instituted on 6th March 1917. The court referred to Order VII, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and noted that judicial opinion on this point had diverged. However, the Judicial Committee in Chandra Kishore Roy v. Prasanna Kumari Dasi held that compliance with Section 187 of the Indian Succession Act, requiring Probate before establishing a legatee's right, was sufficient if done before the decree. The court concluded that the suit was not premature as the Letters of Administration were granted before the decree. 3. Whether the suit was barred by limitation: The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation. The court considered Articles 134, 142, and 144 of the Indian Limitation Act. Article 134, which deals with suits to recover property conveyed in trust and transferred by the trustee, was deemed inapplicable as it refers to cases involving transfer of full ownership. Article 142, which deals with suits for possession when the plaintiff has been dispossessed, was also inapplicable as the plaintiffs were never in possession. The court concluded that the suit was governed by Article 144, which provides a twelve-year limitation period from when the defendant's possession became adverse. The court found that the possession of the mortgagors could not operate adversely to the debuttar, and the suit was filed within the limitation period. Conclusion: The court affirmed the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal with costs, holding that the defendants' title was not valid against the debuttar, the suit was not premature, and it was not barred by limitation.
|
