Debuttar property and permanent lease limits: lease without necessity could not defeat the endowment or trigger Article 134 limitation

A mouzah was treated as debuttar property where the original sanad described it as such and the income had long been applied to idol worship and maintenance. A Mohant could not grant a mokurari pottah or permanent lease of debuttar property except in case of unavoidable necessity, and no such necessity was shown; the lease therefore created only a subordinate interest and could not bind the endowment beyond the grantor's lifetime. A mokurari lessee was not a purchaser for valuable consideration under Article 134 of the Limitation Act, so the limitation bar did not apply. The appeal succeeded and the decree of the Subordinate Judge was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the mouzah was debuttar property dedicated to the worship of the idols; (ii) whether the Mohant had power to grant a mokurari pottah or permanent lease of the debuttar property; (iii) whether the respondents' claim was barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act.

Issue (i): whether the mouzah was debuttar property dedicated to the worship of the idols.

Analysis: The origin of title was an ancient sanad describing the grant as debuttar property, and the subsequent and continuous appropriation of the income to the worship and maintenance of the idols strongly supported the founder's intention. The surrounding circumstances, including the later description of the property as ancestral lakheraj debuttar property endowed for the deity's service, confirmed that the property had been dedicated to the idols represented by the Mohant.

Conclusion: The mouzah was debuttar property dedicated to the worship of the idols.

Issue (ii): whether the Mohant had power to grant a mokurari pottah or permanent lease of the debuttar property.

Analysis: The power of a Mohant to alienate debuttar property is confined to cases of unavoidable necessity. No such necessity was established for the grants in question. A permanent lease creates only a subordinate interest and does not extinguish the lessor's title. On the facts found, the leases could not operate beyond the life of the grantor Mohant.

Conclusion: The Mohant had no power to grant a permanent lease binding the endowment beyond his lifetime.

Issue (iii): whether the respondents' claim was barred by limitation under Article 134 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: Article 134 applies to property conveyed or bequeathed in trust and afterwards purchased for valuable consideration. Section 10 protects property vested in trust for a specific purpose. A mokurari lease is not a conveyance of absolute title and the lessee is not a purchaser within the meaning of Article 134. The wider construction adopted below could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The claim was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decree was displaced, and the decree of the Subordinate Judge stood restored with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A permanent lease of debuttar property, granted without necessity, is only a subordinate interest and does not make the lessee a purchaser for valuable consideration so as to attract the limitation bar under Article 134.

---