1. The plaintiffs bring the suit on the ground that they are sons of Gobinda and Gopal, who many years ago absconded from the village, leaving their property in the hands of their co-sharers as trustees, and they rest the proof of the trust on an entry in the administration-paper of 1864. The defendant pleaded in effect that the plaintiff's are not the persons they represent themselves to be, and that there was no such trust created as they assert, and that the property in suit was for years possessed by Sahib Earn, Param Sukh, and others, whose rights and interests therein were bought in 1912 sambat, or 22 years ago, by the defendant at public auction, and the claim has become barred by adverse possession on the defendant's part. The Court of First Instance found in favour of the several pleas advanced by defendant and dismissed the suit.
2. The lower Appellate Court has decreed the claim, holding that the plaintiff's are the persons they represent themselves to be; but it is silent as to when and how those whom plaintiffs represent deserted their village; it holds that under the entry in the administration-paper Sahib Earn must be considered to have become trustee for the absconders, and no period of limitation will bar the suit against him, or against his representative, the defendant, who purchased at auction-sale his rights and interests.
3. This decision is clearly open to the objections taken in appeal. Accepting the finding that plaintiffs are representatives of Gobinda and Gopal, who at some time or other deserted their villages, in order to establish the fact that Sahib Ram and the others held their property as their trustees, there must be evidence that they accepted such a trust, and this fact cannot be taken as proved by a vague and general entry made in an administration-paper of a date subsequent to the relinquishment of the property by the absconders, and which refers to future years, to which Sahib Earn and the others were no parties, and which merely states in general terms that absconders from the village shall receive back their property on their return; and further, could such trust to Sahib Earn and the others be established, the claim is clearly barred by the limitation of twelve years, since the defendant is a purchaser in good faith for value from Sahib Earn and the others, and is not his representative within the meaning of Section 10, Act IX of 1871, and it is not shown that he bought with any notice of the trust.
4. We decree the appeal and reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss the suit with all costs.