https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175926 A contemporaneous application and deed showed that immovable property had been set apart as a perpetual gift to the deity, with the settlor divesting personal ownership and acting as trustee. The will was treated as directions for administration of the religious endowment, not as defeating the earlier completed dedication, and the absence of proof of later income application did not affect validity. On limitation, Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not bar recovery because the transferees had not taken possession under the earlier transfer. The suit for recovery was therefore within time and the decree for recovery stood. en-us Tue, 22 Aug 1939 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Dec 2015 17:53:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175926 A contemporaneous application and deed showed that immovable property had been set apart as a perpetual gift to the deity, with the settlor divesting personal ownership and acting as trustee. The will was treated as directions for administration of the religious endowment, not as defeating the earlier completed dedication, and the absence of proof of later income application did not affect validity. On limitation, Article 134 of the Limitation Act, 1908 did not bar recovery because the transferees had not taken possession under the earlier transfer. The suit for recovery was therefore within time and the decree for recovery stood. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Aug 1939 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175926