1929 (1) TMI 9 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the house in dispute was validly dedicated as a trust (debutter) property in favor of family idols and thus not alienable by the donor.

- Whether the deed of endowment executed in 1908 created a valid and irrevocable dedication of the property.

- Whether subsequent acts, including the deed of revocation in 1910 and mortgage deeds executed thereafter, affected the validity or existence of the dedication.

- Whether adverse possession for more than 12 years by the donor or his heirs extinguished the trust interest of the idols in the property.

- Whether the mortgage money taken for legal necessity binds the trust property.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity and Effect of the 1908 Deed of Endowment (Dedication)

The legal framework governing dedication of property to idols or religious purposes requires a clear intention to dedicate and completion of the dedication. Precedents such as the Full Bench decision in Sri Thakurji v. Sukhdeo Singh and Privy Council rulings in Jadu Nath v. Sita Ramji establish that mere registration of a deed is not conclusive; surrounding circumstances and subsequent conduct must be considered to infer real intention.

The Court noted that the 1908 deed explicitly stated that ownership ceased in favor of the idols and possession was transferred to the donor's mother as shebait. The deed also allowed the donor and his heirs supervisory rights over the worship funded by the property's income. Although no mutation of municipal or revenue records was effected and the donor continued paying municipal taxes, these omissions were not decisive. The Court observed that mutation might be less significant for city property and that oral evidence showed the mother actually lived in the house and worship was maintained.

Thus, the Court concluded that the deed of endowment was a valid dedication, supported by both the language of the document and conduct of the parties, rejecting arguments that absence of mutation or accounts disproved dedication.

Effect of the 1909 Mortgage Deed and Subsequent Revocation in 1910

The 1909 mortgage deed was executed by both the donor and his mother, describing themselves as owners and shebaits respectively, and was made for purposes consistent with the trust (repairs and worship expenses). The deed acknowledged the 1908 dedication by showing the document to the mortgagee, and did not assert its nullity or revocation.

The Court interpreted this as an indication that the dedication was recognized and not a nullity. The contradictory language was attributed to the mortgagee's attempt to secure interests from both trustee and donor capacities.

However, the 1910 deed of revocation, executed by both donor and mother, declared the 1908 dedication null and void, alleging deception by the uncle who had been guardian. The revocation stated that the donor had been in proprietary possession and enjoyment continuously, and registered notices of revocation were circulated, with no challenge from the uncle or others.

The Court held that from the date of revocation, the possession of the donor became adverse to the idols' interest, marking the beginning of adverse possession against the trust.

Adverse Possession and Its Effect on the Dedication

Under the deed, possession was to pass to the mother as shebait, but the donor continued paying taxes and exercising control. The Court found that the donor's possession post-1910 revocation was adverse to the idols' interest, and since no assertion was made by the trust or its representatives for over 12 years, adverse possession matured into title extinguishing the trust.

The Court rejected the argument that adverse possession cannot be taken against idols or trust property, citing Privy Council decisions (Maharaja Jagadindra Nath v. Hemanta Kumari Dasi and Man Singh v. Nawlakhbati) which affirm that adverse possession can be acquired even against idols and dedicated property.

The donor's right to supervise worship, as reserved in the 1908 deed, was held not to constitute a trustee relationship or ownership, and did not prevent adverse possession from ripening into title.

Effect of Subsequent Mortgages and Sale

The 1914 mortgage deed executed by the donor asserted his proprietary interest and led to a decree and public auction. The last mortgage in 1923 was executed after the expiration of the adverse possession period and was supported by the donor's possession and title. The Court found no ground to invalidate these transactions on the basis of the earlier dedication.

The plea that the mortgage money was for legal necessity was not fully established by the defendant, and the Court did not find it necessary to decide on this point conclusively.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"If a valid dedication has once been completed there would be no power left in the donor to revoke it, and no assertion on his part or subsequent conduct contrary to such dedication would have the effect of nullifying it."

"The omission to apply for mutation of names can be explained to some extent ... this omission by itself does not necessarily show that the deed was not acted upon."

"Adverse possession can be acquired against idols in respect of property dedicated in their favour ... So long as such possession is exercised to the ouster and knowledge of the shebait, it would mature into title after the lapse of the prescribed period."

"The clause authorizing the donor to see to the proper carrying on of the worship conferred a right of intervention but did not vest the trust property in him nor constitute him a trustee."

The Court ultimately held that the 1908 deed of dedication was valid and irrevocable until the 1910 revocation, which was effective and followed by adverse possession for over 12 years by the donor. This adverse possession extinguished the trust interest of the idols, vesting ownership in the donor and his heirs. Consequently, the mortgage executed by the donor after this period was valid, and the suit seeking declaration of non-alienability of the property was dismissed with costs.