TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1929 (1) TMI 9
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9; old. He was brought up by his uncle Niranjan Mukharji who was appointed a certificated guardian. About 1902 Chittaranjan attained majority, but the management and some Government securities, remained in the hands of his uncle Niranjan Mukharji. On 2nd June 1908 a registered deed of release was executed by Chittaranjan in favour of his uncle Niranjan, stating that he had received all the accounts and received back what was due to him. On the same day Chittaranjan executed a deed of endowment dedicating the house in dispute in favour of three family idols and appointing his own mother as the shebait of the said idols. The deed of dedication specifically mentioned that Chittaranjan had ceased to be the owner of the property which had passed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n him by his uncle that he had been made to execute the document of 2nd Juno 1908, which is not enforcible, and he accordingly cancelled and nullified it by this deed of revocation, and that to this revocation his mother who had been appointed shebait under the deed had agreed to and affixed her signature. It is by one witness that registered notices announcing the revocation were circulated and one of them was sent to Niranjan Mukharji and in 1911 Chittaranjan applied for and obtained permission for putting up a scaffolding. 3. On 13th May 1914 Chittaranjan made a second mortgage of this property in favour of Shiam Sunder. Neither the previous mortgage-deed nor the deed of endowment nor the deed of revocation was expressly mentioned in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... there was no limitation. He has further held that although the amount borrowed might have been for legal necessity, the defendant had not established that he had paid the said amount. The plea of misrepresentation or undue influence alleged to have been exercised by Niranjan on Chittaranjan has not been pressed before us. We must therefore take it that the deed of endowment was duly executed and registered by Chittaranjan on 2nd June 1908. 6. The question whether it created a valid dedication depends on whether there was a real intention to dedicate the property and the dedication was completed. No doubt there may be circumstances under which the mere execution and registration of a deed of endowment may not amount to a complete dedicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....theless in that case their Lordships of the Privy Council upheld the dedication. In the case before us the omission to apply for mutation of names can be explained to some extent by the circumstance that this was a house property situated in the city of Benares, as regards which the mutation of names may not be of the same importance as that with regard to zamindari property. In any case this omission by itself does not necessarily show that the deed was not acted upon. The oral evidence does indicate that the mother of Chittaran who had been appointed shebait actually lived in this house, and the worship of the idols had been carried on as it had been done before. 7. We come next to the mortgage-deed of 1909. The phraseology of this docum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ossession was to pass From Chittaranjan to his mother, who was entitled to live in the house or let it out on rent as the shebait of the idols, and was to spend the income on the worship of those idols. We have already pointed out that no mutation of names followed, and the payment of the municipal taxes continued to be made by Chittaranjan himself. In 1910 Chittaranjan and his mother both joined in executing the deed of revocation by which it was made clear that the executants had agreed that the endowment had ceased to be effective. That deed further recited that Chittaranjan had himself been in proprietary possession and in enjoyment of the property. From that moment therefore the character of the possession of Chittaranjan over the hous....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....argued before us that in the circumstances of this case there could have been no adverse possession at all. The view of the Court below that there could not be any adverse possession because the idols themselves remained in the house cannot for a moment be accepted. As a matter of fact there can be adverse, possession, not only as against the idols but over the idols themselves. That adverse possession can be acquired against idols in respect of property dedicated in their favour is fully clear from several cases decided by their Lordships of the Privy Council. We may refer to Maharaja Jagadindra Nath v. Hemanta Kumari Dasi [1904] 32 Cal. 129, which was followed by this Court in the case of Man Singh v. Nawlakhbati A.I.R. 1926 P.C. 2. We ma....