Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. On behalf of the defendant, it was contended that the provisions of the will relating to the creation of the charity are vague, and therefore inoperative in law, that the money should be treated as undisposed of and held by the trustee on behalf of the author of the trust or his legal representatives, that as the will was, void with regard to the gift to charity, the user of the property in dispute as a "dharmashala" was immaterial, that his adoption was valid under the Hindu law, and that he is therefore entitled to the property as Babu Ram's legal heir. It was also contended that the defendant was all along in possession of the property and that he was not estopped from contesting the present suit.

20. The law is well settled that in an action for ejectment the plaintiff can recover only by the strength of his own title, and not by the weakness of that of the defendant. Mr. Parikh, appearing for the respondents, admitted at the outset that the provision of the' will relating to charity is vague, and is therefore inoperative to create a charitable trust; but he did not admit that the result of the failure of the trust is, as was held by the Subordinate Judge, that the executor must be considered as holding the undisposed of residue as trustee for the' benefit of the author of the trust or his legal representative, his position being, that the resulting trust which arises when the trust fails or is void on account of vagueness or uncertainty is a trust against the deed and the property if retained by the executor is prima facie held by the executor adversely to the heir-at-law; and if, as in the present case, he dedicates the property to charity, the trust so created, after the expiry of twelve years' adverse possession, would acquire a statutory title to it.

21. The law is well established that where a trustee has been in possession for upwards of twelve years of property under a trust which is void under the law, an action against him by the rightful owner would be barred by limitation under the statute, the reason being that the possession of the trustee is as much adverse to the true owner as that of any trespasser. Section 10 of the "Indian Limitation Act (IX of 1908) says :

...no suit against a person in whom property has become vested in trust for any specific purpose or against his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration)' for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property or the proceeds thereof or for an account of such property or proceeds shall be barred by any length of time.
If this section could successfully be invoked in favour of the appellant, then the respondents would be precluded from relying on the plea of adverse possession in their favour; but Mr. Rewcastle has frankly conceded, and in their Lordships' opinion rightly, that the appellant cannot claim the benefit of this section, as it would be impossible to hold that the property in respect of which the direction in the will is void has become "vested in trust for a specific purpose" within its meaning. Since the provision in the will creating the charitable trust is invalid, and Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act is inapplicable to the case, it follows that the property is held by the executor adversely to the true owner; and if he' so holds it for the statutory period, he would acquire a good title to it.