TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1978 (2) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tge purchased lands mentioned at items 1A to 1E in the plaint on the. 3rd of December, 1896 in the name of the deity Shri Vithal Rakhumai Dev. Lands at IF, 1G and 1H were endowed by Ambabai to the deity by a deed of endowment executed in January or February 1905. Udder this deed of endowment, one Pandurang Babaji Pawar was appointed as the Vehivatdar (Manager) and one Bala Appa Yadava was appointed as a servant of the deity. On the 1st of June, 1905, however, Ambabai executed a sale deed in respect of all the suit properties except property 1E in favour of Pandurang and Bala. On the 23rd of June, 1907 Ambabai executed a second Will and in that also she reiterated that Pandurang was being appointed as Vahivatdar and Bala a servant of the dei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sales made in the year 1905 as also in the year 1947 were attacked as being void and not binding on the deity. Although specifically the deity was not impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit, as observed by the District Judge, Sitara who tried the suit in the first in-stance, to all intents and purposes the suit was by the deity and the two Plaintiffs. Defendants contested the suit on several grounds. Several issues were framed and tried by the learned District Judge. He held that the properties in suit were bequeathed by Ambabai to the deity. The sale deed dated 1-6-1905 was obtained by undue influence. It was without legal necessity and was not for the benefit of the Devasthan. It was, therefore, held to be not binding on the Devasthan. Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions made on behalf of the appellants. In our judgment, there is no substance in any of the points urged on behalf of the appellant. The possession- of the purchasers was adverse in respect of all the properties at 1 A to 1 D and 1 F to 1 H from the very beginning. By such adverse possession those who had come in possession of these properties had acquired an indefeasible title under the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. It is not necessary to decide in this case as to which of the articles in the first Schedule of the said Limitation Act applied to this case. Whether it was Articles 134, 134A, 134B, 142 or I," the claim had become barred long, long before the year 1955. The effect of section 28 of the Limitation Act was that right to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of the Limitation Act_ including the provision in section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1908. But then the over-riding effect of section 52A will have its play and operation, only if, by the time it came into force, section 28 had not extinguished the right to the property in question. Otherwise not. In Mahant Biseshwar Dass v. Sashinath Jhan and others(A.I.R. 1943, Patna, 289) a Bench of the Patna High Court pointed out that where the right of the plaintiff bad become barred by limitation before the Amending Act of 1929 was passed the mere institution of the suit after 1929 cannot have the effect of reviving that right. By the Amending Act of 1929 in section 10 of the Limitation Act it was provided that no suit instituted against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. Of course, even in the light of the old section it was held that the suit was not barred by limitation and the decree of the High Court was affirmed. Krishnan J. in the case of Balram Chunnilal and others v. Durgalal Shivnarain(A.I.R. 1968 Madhya Pradesh, 81.) expressed a view identical to the one expressed by the Patna High Court (vide end of paragraph 36 page 86 column 10. Mr. Datar placed reliance upon the decision of the Bombay High Court in Dev Chavata and another v. Ganesh Mahadeo Deshpande and another(A.I.R. 1970 Bombay, 412) in order to take advantage of section 52A of the Act.' The ratio of the case has of be appreciated in the background of the facts found therein. The principles of law as enunciated cannot be fully and squarel....