Back
1942 Supreme(SC) 15
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD THANKERTON, SIR GEORGE RANKIN, AND SIR MADHAVAN NAIR.
LALA HEM CHAND - Appellant
Versus
LALA PEAREY LAL - Respondents
On appeal from the High Court at Lahore.
Decided On : June. 24. 1942.
Solicitors for appellant:Barrow, Rogers & Nevill. Solicitors for respondents: T. L. Wilson & Co.
In an ejectment suit, the plaintiff must prove their own title. If a charitable trust created by will is void for vagueness, the executor's possession is adverse to the heir, and title is extinguished after twelve years under Section 28 of the Limitation Act.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1908 - Sections 10 and 28 - Action for ejectment - Plaintiff can recover only by the strength of his own title and not by the weakness of that of the defendant.
(B) Trust and Endowments - Where a trust created by will is void due to vagueness or uncertainty, the property retained by the executor is prima facie held adversely to the heir-at-law.
(C) Adverse Possession - Possession of a trustee for upwards of twelve years under a void trust bars action by the rightful owner, as such possession is as adverse as that of a trespasser.
(D) Extinction of Right - Under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, the right to property is extinguished at the determination of the period limited for instituting a suit for possession.
Facts of the case:
A suit was instituted for recovery of possession of a house used as a charitable guest house. The testator had expressed an intention in his will to create a charitable trust, but the provisions were found to be vague. The executor purchased the property using funds from the estate intended for the trust. The property was used for public and charitable purposes for over twenty years. The appellant, claiming to be the legal heir, sought possession, arguing that the trust was void and the property should devolve upon him.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the provision of the will creating the charitable trust was vague and inoperative. Therefore, Section 10 of the Limitation Act, which protects property vested in trust for a specific purpose, was inapplicable. The executor's possession was adverse to the true owner. Since the property was dedicated and used as a charitable guest house for more than twelve years with the knowledge and implied consent of the appellant, the appellant's title was extinguished by operation of law.
Issues: Whether the respondents established title to the property through adverse possession and whether the appellant's title was extinguished under the Limitation Act following the failure of the charitable trust.
Ratio Decidendi: In an action for ejectment, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of their own title. When a trust is void for vagueness, the executor's possession is adverse to the heir. If the property is held adversely for the statutory period of twelve years, the heir's title is extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, and title vests in the party in possession by prescription.
Result: Appeal dismissed, with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
property law
- adverse possession
-
trusts
- charitable trusts
-
succession law
- wills
- adoption
-
practice and procedure
- ejectment
Judgement
Appeal (No. 87 of 1939) from a decree of the High Court (January 27, 1938) which reversed a decree of the, Court of the Subordinate Judge, Delhi (November 30, 1936), in favour of the defendant, the present appellant.
The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee The appeal arose out of a suit instituted by the respondents, on behalf of the members of the brotherhood of the Digamber Jains, for recovery of possession from the appellant of a house described as " Jain Dharamsala," situate at Khatra Mashru, in ward 4 of the town of Delhi, and entered as No. 48 in the municipal registers. The question for decision in this appeal was whether the respondents had established their title to, and right to recover possession of, the suit property from the appellant. The parties to the suit were Jains, and were governed by the Mitakshara law. In the plaint it was alleged that the house in dispute was purchased by one Lala Janaki Das, presumably with his own funds, that he " converted it" into a Dharamsala, that it was used as such and managed by him during his lifetime, that after his death in 1909 it remained under the management of his son, Ramchand, the third respondent, till it was handed over to the Jain Orphanage Society of Delhi, that the appellant got possession of it from him in January, 1931, for temporary use during the occasion of the marriage of his daughter, and that he refused to vacate when he was asked to return it. The appellant traversed the allegations of the plaint, repudiated the dedication of the property as " Dharamsala," and pleaded as material facts that the house was owned and possessed by him. He also questioned the right of the respondents to maintain the suit. In the course of evidence the following facts were elicited one, Sri Ram, "by occupation a pleader, "resident of Delhi," executed a will on March 23, 1892. After appointing two executors, Lala Janaki Das (mentioned in the plaint) and Munshi Ramji Das, and setting out the details of his movable and immovable properties, valued at Rs.40,400, the testator expressed in para. 1 of the will his intention of creating a trust for charity in respect of Rs.11,500 out of his properties as follows " Out of the aforesaid property "of the value of Rs.40,400, property worth Rs.11,500 .... "viz., one house situate in Khatramashru and valued at "Rs.6500 .... and Rs.5000 .... in cash be given away in " charity. That is, the money be given away in charity account "and the house under reference be made wakf. I myself "will manage the wakf house in my lifetime, and after my "death managers shall be appointed and instructions shall be "laid down for their guidance." In paras, ii. and iii. of the will the testator made provisions in favour of his wife, Mst. Durgi Devi, and Mst. Bhugli, widow of his deceased son. In para, iv., after giving a legacy to a cousin of his, he left the residue for charity in the following terms "As regards the remaining "property of the value of about Rs.12,000 (twelve thousand), "I make the following will The property which is left " unbequeathed at the time of my death be included in the "charity account." The testator did not carry out his intention of creating a charitable trust.
About a week before his death, by a codicil dated April 30, 1892, he amended the disposition for charity of the residue made in para. iv. of the will as follows ".... I now .... amend "the said wording of para. No. iv. of the will .... and make "the following will about the use of the unbequeathed sum of "about Rs.12,000 The said amount of money .... To be "deposited in the charity account, on account of the land "situate at Pahar Gang. ,"... Rs.7000 (Rupees 7000)." He applied the balance of the residue in legacies to certain specified persons and for the construction of an inner hall in a named temple in the name of his deceased son.
On May 7, 1892, the testator died leaving surviving him his widow Musammat Durgi, and Musummat Bhugl
