9911796707
TMI Blog1925 (10) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought more than 12 years after the date of the alienation. Article 134 gives a period of 12 years for the recovery of possession of Immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the trustee or mortgagee for valuable consideration. The argument advanced is that the suit is barred by Article 134 if the transferor is held to be a trustee and if he is not a trustee, then the suit is barred by reason of Article 144 of the Limitation Act. The finding that the transferor is a trustee cannot be challenged now. The simple question is therefore whether Article 134 applies to the case. It was decided in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Aiyar (1921) 41 MLJ 340 that a permanent lease of Mutt property granted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the income for himself. In the case of a wakf if the deed of trust makes provision for the maintenance of the Muthavali or the trustee for the time being, he may use the income for himself as allowed by the deed of trust, but in the case of Hindu religious institutions no trustee of any institution is entitled to use any portion of the income for himself if the property is vested in the idol. The decision in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Aiyar (1921)41MLJ340 cannot be said to apply only to cases of leases. The remarks of their Lordships apply to cases of all 'alienations of property. A permanent lease is as much an alienation as a sale. The mere fact that rent is payable by the permanent lessee does not make a permanent lease any th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held to be barred. The property was vested in the person and he held the office for the time being and when he was dismissed from the office his possession became adverse to his successor and the successor not having sued within 12 years his suit was barred. 4. There are a few cases which may be said to support the contention of Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar that an invalid alienation of trust property should be set aside within 12 years and if not so set aside, the vendee under the invalid sale gets a good title. The decision in Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram ILR (1899) M. 271 and Damodar Das v. Lakhan Das (1910) 30 MLJ 624 supports this view. In Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram (1899) 10 MLJ 39 the hereditar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the right of the idol and of the senior chela, as representing that idol, and that therefore the previous suit was barred by limitation. 8. There is no discussion in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Aiyar (1921) 41 MLJ 346 Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram (1899) 10 MLJ 39 and Damodar Das v. Lakhan Das (1910) 30 MLJ 624. In view of their Lordships' decision in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami. Aiyar (1921) 41 MLJ 346 Gnana Sambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram (1899) 10 MLJ 39 and Damodar Das v. Lakhan Das (1910) 30 MLJ 624 cannot be considered to be good law. The principle underlying these decisions seems to be this: that where the trustee of a religious institution who is only a manager for the time being, alienates any proper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. But where he purports to convey the title to the property which is vested in him the vendee cannot be said to derive title from a man who could never give a good title to him. If the vendee buys knowing that the trustee has no right to convey title to the property which is vested in the idol, he cannot set up Article 144 in answer to a suit by the trustee for the recovery of the property. His possession is that of the trustee and a trustee's possession can never be adverse to the idol. No doubt if a person takes possession of the Immovable property belonging to a temple and keeps the trustee and the persons connected with the temple out of possession and is able to assert such possession adversely to the trust for over 12 years, he c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to the alienee unless it is proved that the alienation was one which could bind the institution. In the course of the judgment, Das, J. observed: In my opinion the true rule is this, where the property is vested in the juridical person as it was in Damodar Das's case (5) and the Mahant is only the representative and manager of the idol, the act of alienation is a direct challenge upon the title of the idol, and the idol, or the manager of the idol on behalf of the idol must bring the suit within twelve years from the date of the alienation. But where the title is in the Mahant or the Shebait, as it was in the two other cases to which I have referred, the act of alienation is not a challenge upon the title of the idol, though the prop ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
