https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275861 A permanent lease of endowment property belonging to a Hindu religious institution held for its general purposes was not treated as a trustee's alienation of property vested in trust for a specific purpose, so Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply. The head of a math was regarded as a manager with broad control over income rather than a technical trustee. On adverse possession, limitation against a successor manager began only when that successor's right to possession accrued; because possession was not adverse for twelve years before suit, Article 144 also failed. The plaintiffs therefore did not establish title and the dismissal of the suit was restored. en-us Tue, 05 Jul 1921 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:39:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275861 A permanent lease of endowment property belonging to a Hindu religious institution held for its general purposes was not treated as a trustee's alienation of property vested in trust for a specific purpose, so Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply. The head of a math was regarded as a manager with broad control over income rather than a technical trustee. On adverse possession, limitation against a successor manager began only when that successor's right to possession accrued; because possession was not adverse for twelve years before suit, Article 144 also failed. The plaintiffs therefore did not establish title and the dismissal of the suit was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Jul 1921 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275861