Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Oudh (November 24, 1913), reversing a decree of the Additional Judge of Hardoi.

The suit was instituted on November 15, 1910, by the appellants as reversionary heirs of one Darshan Singh, who died on November 17, 1898, against the respondents for possession of certain property which had belonged to Darshan Singh. By a deed dated July 20, 1898, the material provisions of which appear from the judgment of their Lordships, Darshan Singh had dedicated the whole of his property to the temple of the respondent Thakur, and had provided that the other respondents should be managers after the donees death and in that capacity should enjoy half the net income.

Law. Rep. 44 Ind. App. 187 ( 1916- 1917)

Jadu Nath Singh V. Thakur Sita Ramji 58

The Additional Judge of Hardoi held that under the deed the property did not pass to the idol but was merely charged for the expenses of the temple to the extent of half the profits. He accordingly made a decree in the appellants favour subject to their defraying those expenses to the extent of half the income.

Upon appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner the decree was set aside and the suit dismissed. The learned judges held that on the true construction of the deed the corpus of the property was given to the idol and dedicated to the purposes of the temple, and that if there was any charge it was in favour of the widowed members of the donees family. They further were of opinion that the fact that the donee did not effect a mutation of names in his lifetime was not material seeing that the rents of the endowed property fell due after his death. Finally they held that the property vested in the idol from the date of the deed and that the suit not having been instituted within twelve years of that date was barred under the Indian Limitation Act (IX. of 1908), Sched. I., art. 144.

1917. April 24. Sir William Garth and S. V. Sen, for the appellants. Although in form there was a complete gift to the idol the real intention was to benefit the donees family and to secure the property from creditors. The donee did not effect mutation of names nor act upon the deed in any way. If it operates at all it merely creates a charge upon the property for the temple expenses to the extent of half the income. The case is not distinguishable in principle from Sonatun By sack v. Juggutsoondaree Dossee (8 Moo. Ind. Ap. 66.) and Ashutosh Dutt v. Doorga Churn Chatterjee. (L. R. 6 Ind. Ap. 182.) [Reference was also made to Brojosoondery Debia v. Luchmee Koonwarree (( 1875) 15 Beng.

L. R. 176 n.).] The suit was not barred by limitation, because there was no adverse possession until the death of the donee.

De Gruyther, K.C., and Dube, for the respondents, were not called upon.

The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

VISCOUNT HALDANE. Their Lordships think this is a very plain case, and they propose to intimate at once the advice which they will tender to the Sovereign.

The whole question arises on the construction of a deed of endowment executed by one Darshan Singh on July 20, 1898. There had been a joint family, and he and his brother, the heads of the joint family, had made a joint will and the brother had died before him. Darshan Singh was desirous by this date of making a disposition of the property, which was now his as head of the joint family, so that it should be devoted to religious purposes, and he executed this deed and afterwards, by registering it, showed that it represented an intention which he desired to treat as carried into execution. The deed begins by saying that he dedicates his whole property to and in favour of the temple of Sita Ramji; then he goes on to say that during his lifetime, he himself will manage and administer the estate of the temple ; after that, he provides that his daughter-in-law is to act as manager and administrator, and, after her, his own daughters, Musammat Janki and Musammat