Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Treating this, then as a suit by one to recover for the math lands in relation to which he is its head and trustee, we start with the proposition that property given for the maintenance of a math is, as a general rule, inalienable in the absence of special circumstances: Prosunno Kumari Debya v. Golab Chand Baboo (1875) L.R. 2 I.A. 145; Konwar v. Ram Chunder (1876) 2 Cal. 34. But it by no means follows from this that such property cannot be lost by the operation of the Statute of Limitation: President, do, of the College of St. Mary Magdalen, Oxford v. The Attorney General (1857) 6 H.L.C. 189 and Bobbet v. The South Eastern Railway Co. . The case made by the plaintiff is that the property(1882) 9 Q.B.D. 424 under the original grant from the Peishwa was vested in the gurus for the time being in trust for the math, and that, notwithstanding the terms of the more recent sanads, it still is, on the principle enunciated in Keech v. Sandford 1 W. & T.L.C. 7th Ed. P. 693 held on this trust. We will, for the sake of argument, assume this to be so. We have than here a suit to recover possession of immoveable property, conveyed in trust and afterwards purchased from the trustee for a valuable consideration. But this is the class of suit to which Article 134 in the second schedule to the Limitation Act in terms relates, and the time thereby limited for such a suit is twelve years from the purchase. Here far more than twelve years had passed from the purchase at the institution of the suit, and during that period possession had been with the purchaser. We see no reason for not applying the provision of Article 134 to this case, more especially when we find a warrant for this view in the judgment of Mr. Justice Gurudas Banerji in Nilmony v. Jagabandhu (1896) 23 Cal. 536 and of a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Behari Lal v. Muhammad (1898) 20 All. 482.