TMI Blog1914 (8) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the temple to which she had given the properties comprised in Exhibit I. The present suit is brought for a declaration that the will of 1907 is inoperative and has not the effect of revoking the trust of 1894; and that under the terms of the trust diced the plaintiffs are entitled to possession. 2. The question for consideration is whether there was a complete dedication of the properties Exhibit I, to the temple and if so, whether it was competent to Nilayathakshi to revoke the trust. We think there was a complete dedication. In the document itself she says I have given away by this deed of gift this day to the said Sri Nilayathakshi Ambal the said shops, etc, It is true that later on she says I shall establish a Kattalai in my ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t . The fact mostly relied upon by the learned Vakil for the appellant is that after Exhibit I Nilayathakshi dealt with the property as if it was her own and never carried out any of the terms of the trust contained in Exhibit I. The argument is that Exhibit I was simply a paper transaction which was never intended to have effect. If there has been a valid dedication the subsequent conduct of the settlor will not render it nugatory At the time of the settlement all that was necessary to give effect to the wishes of the settlor had been done. If the terms of the settlement are not' carried into effect it will make the settlor liable for breach of trust. It will not destroy the once validly created settlement. Under the Indian Trusts Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... down as a matter of law that where the terms of a trust have not been given effect to the defaulting trustee can claim to revoke the trust. 4. The case of Muhamad Aziz-ud-din Ahmad Khan v. The Legal Remembrancer to Government (1893) I.L.R. 15 A. 321 proceeds upon grounds which are peculiar to the Muhammadan Law. The author of the trust never parted with the possession until his death, and, as under the Muhammadan Law in cases of gifts and trusts possession is essential, it was held in that case that there was no complete dedication to public uses by the mere execution and registration of the document. On the other hand in the case reported in Hidaitoon-Nissa v. Syud Afzul Hossein (1870) 2. N.W.P.H.C.R. 420 it has been held that where a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
