TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the immovable property was absolutely dedicated to religious purposes or merely subjected to a charge; (ii) Whether the suit for recovery of the property was barred by limitation.
Issue (i): Whether the immovable property was absolutely dedicated to religious purposes or merely subjected to a charge.
Analysis: The application for an A-form certificate stated that the property had been set apart as a perpetual gift to the deity and sought recognition of title in the deity. The contemporaneous deed executed in favour of the Secretary of State described the property as belonging to the temple and was executed by the settlor as trustee. These documents showed clear setting apart of the property and divestiture of personal ownership. The will was read as providing directions for administration of the religious endowment and not as negativing the earlier completed dedication. The absence of proof as to how income was actually applied after the dedication did not affect validity once divestiture was complete.
Conclusion: The property had been absolutely dedicated to the deity and was not merely charged for religious purposes.
Issue (ii): Whether the suit for recovery of the property was barred by limitation.
Analysis: The relevant limitation rule was Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Under the pre-amendment rule, the period ran from the date of transfer, but the binding authority of the Court held that Article 134 did not apply where possession was not taken by the transferee under the earlier transfer. Since the mortgagees obtained possession only on the later conveyance, the suit was within time on the footing accepted after the amendment, and the appellants could not invoke the old article to bar the suit.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was unsuccessful, the respondents were entitled to recovery of the property, and the decree for costs followed accordingly.
Ratio Decidendi: A contemporaneous declaration and deed can complete a valid dedication of property to a deity by divesting the owner of personal title, and Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not apply where the transferee did not take possession under the earlier transfer.
TaxTMI 
