A person's religious profession as an ascetic does not legally incapacitate them from holding property. Without proof of the source of funds or a clear dedication, property acquired by a professed ascetic is presumed personal, regardless of the use of terms like "gaddi."

Sir George Rankin.:-

The appellants represent the plaintiffs in a suit brought on 19th April 1921, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Delhi to eject a large number of defendants from certain lands known as the Minarwala garden at or near Subzi Mandi at Delhi. The defendants were persons who claimed title directly or indirectly to divers portions of the land under transfers made in 1915 and 1916 by one Janindar Kirat. The plaintiffs' case at the trial and before the Board is that the land in suit is debutter, being property dedicated to religious uses of the Digambar sect of Jains. It is described in the plaint as dharamarth and as wakf. The plaintiffs sued as followers of the said sect and as having been appointed to recover the property by a general meeting of persons interested in a Jain temple or temples at Delhi. On 28th November 1921, an order under R. 8 of O.1 of the Code, appointed them to represent the Jain community at Delhi for the purposes of the suit. The trial Court by decree dated 29th February 1928 decided in the plaintiffs' favour, but the High Court, on 7th March 1935, reversed this decision and dismissed the suit.

The Minarwala property was the subject of a deed of sale dated 4th December 1895. It was described as a garden with certain buildings thereon which were partly intact and as measuring 6 bighas and 13 biswas. It was said to have two wells and to carry with it the right to draw water in a certain manner from the Jamna canal. The vendor was one Jauhri Mal and the purchase price Rs. 7,000. A pandit called Jia Lal acted for the purchaser. He belongs to the town of Farrukh Nagar, which is not far from Delhi, and he gave evidence at the trial for the plaintiffs. The purchaser was magniloquently described in the deed as Digambar Acharya Maharaj Bhattarak Sri Manindar Kirat Ji, Guru of the Saraojis and gaddinashin of Kashta Sang, Delhi City. According to the translation laid before their Lordships, the deed contained the following sentence:

The said vendee has purchased and acquired with his own fund of his gaddi the aforesaid garden together with all the appurtenant rights for constructing a Jain temple and dharmasala and for a small garden.

The learned Subordinate Judge having transcribed what he takes to be words of the vernacular, translates the important words by the phrase "with the pure money of the capital of his gaddi." The learned Judges of the High Court say that the recital is that it was "the money of his gaddi" but do not profess to be clear as to the meaning. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs in the High Court appears from the judgment to have read it as meaning "from the special fund of his own gaddi."

As to the purchase money, it is not now contended that its source has been proved or that its debutter character can be established by tracing its origin. Jia Lal's evidence and the Sub-Registrar's endorsement on the sale deed show that Rs.1000 had been borrowed from Rai Bahadur Sultan Singh, who was the original plaintiff 1; that it was paid to the vendor as earnest money; and that the lender has been repaid. The same evidence proves that on the day after the deed was executed Jai Lal handed to the vendor before the Sub-Registrar a promissory note for Rs.2500 and Rs.3500 in notes and coin. Jai Lal says that the promissory note had been received from Arrah and Chapia, but that he does not know who the drawer and drawee were. Also that the currency notes and cash were obtained from the cashier or Manindar. Beyond this nothing is known of the source of the purchase money.

No case is made by the plaint as to the original source of the money, but in para. 2 it is suggested that the land was bought out of the fund of a Delhi gaddi which belonged to the Agarwal Jains of the Digambar sect and of which Manindar was the gaddinashin. The plaintiffs have not, however, succeeded in showing that any Jain temple or institution in Delhi or elsewhere had any claim to the money with which Manindar purchased th