9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (5) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enging the impugned judgment to the extent of granting one year time to the defendants for constructing college building in the suit land. The Plaintiff was bhumidhar of the suit plot of land No. 233 measuring 1.98 acres. He executed a gift deed in favour of the defendant Thakur Raghunath Ji Maharaj, Virajman Shri Ram Mandir Chutar Teka Village Sakitara, District Mathura on 16.8.1971 for the purpose of construction of college building on the said plot of land. On the same day, a deed of agreement was executed to the effect that the land was gifted for building of degree college and the said building should be constructed within the period of six months from the date of the execution of the gift deed failing which the plaintiff would have th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that the suit plot was still vacant, instead of directing the defendants to return the suit plot, gave an opportunity to the defendants to establish a degree college within a period of one year. It is made clear that in case the college is established and the building is constructed on the said plot of land within the time allowed, the defendants need not comply with the decree passed by the first appellate court and its operation shall be deemed to have been stayed for a period of one year. Hence this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants urged that the suit filed by the plaintiff is clearly barred by time; the gift deed executed by the plaintiff was unconditional and absolute and the so-called agreement could not defeat th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e degree college is constructed, the plaintiff will have no right over the land. From these terms contained in the said deed of agreement, it is clear that the gift was not absolute and/or unconditional. The gift deed and the agreement forming one transaction are to be read together and given effect to accordingly. In other words, the defendants had to take both the benefit and burden. They could not reap the benefit and avoid to unload the burden. Since the defendants did not construct a college building on the suit land, the gift did not come into effect. 6. Before the High Court, the learned counsel for the defendants contended that the substantial question of law that arose for consideration was whether Article 54 or Article 66 of the L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laintiff and the defendants was fiduciary as the suit property was gifted for a specific charitable purpose and the condition attached to the gift that in case college building was not constructed within a specified time, the plaintiff would be entitled to the property, was a valid condition; the donee continued to be trustee and the donor could claim back property on the breach of conditions mentioned in the agreement. The High Court rightly relied on the decision of this Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Banshi Dhar and Ors. (AIR 1974 SC 1084) which fully supports the case of the respondent in regard to his claim for possession of the property. In the said judgment, it was held that the donation given by Dubey was conditional; the Gover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
