Skip to content


Hulasi and anr. Vs. Baba NaraIn Das and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectLimitation;Trusts and Societies
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925All822
AppellantHulasi and anr.
RespondentBaba NaraIn Das and anr.
Excerpt:
- .....supports the decree of the court below on the ground that the suit is within the period of twelve years' limitation under article 144; which article the privy council declared to be applicable in such cases by their decision in vidya varuthi tkirtha v. balusami ayyar a.i.r. 1922 p.c. 123. the appellants contend that they are entitled to y date their possession from the (sic) august 1906. the answer to this contention is that their mortgagee possession under the deed of 1906 was put an end to by the sale-deed of 26th june 1907.4. the separate usufructuary mortgage of the same shop executed on 26th june 1907 is the real starting point for limitation in this case; and that mortgage was executed within twelve years of the suit. we, therefore, uphold the decree of the court below, though on.....
Judgment:

Daniels, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit by Mahant Baba Narain Das, to recover waqf property alienated in the time of his predecessor, Baba Bajrang: Das. The sole question argued before us is one of limitation. There were a ' number of different transfers some made by Bajrang Das himself and some by two persons, Ram Dayal and Gulab, who are said to have been close intimates of Bajrang Das and to have effected certain sales and mortgages of the waqf property with his permission. The various transfers that have taken place are all set out in the judgment of the Court below. AH of them except one are within twelve years of the date of suit, which was 7th June 1919. The first transfer was a usufructuary mortgage of property including the shop in suit by Ram Dayal and Gulab in favour of Inayatullah. Inayattullah's successor in title was Sewa Ram, and the defendants are the successors-in-title of the latter. On the 26th of June 1907, within 12 years of suit, this mortgage was redeemed by Ram Dayal and Gulab by the execution of a sale-deed of property other than the property in suit.

2. The learned Judge of the Court below has decreed the suit on the ground that Section 10 of the Limitation Act applies and that there is no period of limitation.

3. The learned Judge cannot have read carefully the section on which he relies, for Section 10 does not apply to a suit against assigns for valuable consideration such as the defendants are. The respondent, however, supports the decree of the Court below on the ground that the suit is within the period of twelve years' limitation under Article 144; which article the Privy Council declared to be applicable in such cases by their decision in Vidya Varuthi Tkirtha v. Balusami Ayyar A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 123. The appellants contend that they are entitled to y date their possession from the (sic) August 1906. The answer to this contention is that their mortgagee possession under the deed of 1906 was put an end to by the sale-deed of 26th June 1907.

4. The separate usufructuary mortgage of the same shop executed on 26th June 1907 is the real starting point for limitation in this case; and that mortgage was executed within twelve years of the suit. We, therefore, uphold the decree of the Court below, though on a different ground, and dismiss the appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //