https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288966 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. en-us Fri, 30 Jul 1909 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2020 11:47:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288966 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Jul 1909 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288966