1884 (12) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the sale of lands in execution of decrees against the plaintiff's father and brother.
2. Claim of the plaintiff to recover the lands based on a deed of gift assigning the lands to the plaintiff's brother for religious purposes.
3. Interpretation of the deed of gift as creating a religious endowment.
4. Nature of the present suit and whether it is to set aside the sale or to recover the property as a trustee of the endowment.

Analysis:

1. The decrees were obtained against the plaintiff as the representative of his deceased father and brother. The lands in question were sold to the defendant in execution of those decrees. The plaintiff seeks to recover the lands, arguing that they originally belonged to the Athavle family and were later assigned to his brother through a deed of gift for religious purposes. The Assistant Judge found the facts in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the sale in execution was void, and the suit was not barred until twelve years from dispossession.

2. The deed of gift specified that the lands were given for the sustenance of the plaintiff's father and brother, with the condition that they should worship the family gods and manage the lands without alienating them. The gift was intended for the worship of gods due to the donor's impaired health, and it was meant for the benefit of the brothers and their descendants in perpetuity. The plaintiff, being a minor at the time, was included as a beneficiary of the gift.

3. The defendant argued that the deed of gift did not constitute a religious endowment as it was for the worship of a family god and not for the benefit of the general public. However, the court held that Hindu law allows for the provision of religious services in perpetuity, even for household idols. The court found that the gift created a religious endowment, as previously ruled by the court in similar cases, and confirmed that the present suit was not to set aside the sale but to recover the property as a trustee of the endowment.

4. The court concluded that the nature of the gift established it as a religious endowment, and the suit was considered as one by the trustee of the endowment to recover the property, not by a party to set aside the sale. Therefore, the court confirmed the decree in favor of the plaintiff, with costs, as the defendant did not object to the characterization of the suit throughout the proceedings.