Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In G. Moorthanna v. G. Chinna Ankish, this Court while dealing with the scope of Sections 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act held as follows :

"However, this does not completely solve the problem. The respondents have brought the suit claiming the enforcement of the trust and for possession of the trust properties and so it is for them to show that a trust in fact and in law existed as on the date of the suit. The plea of estoppel would help them to defeat the 1st defendant only when they establish this preliminary and basic position. What has been discussed above shows that though the endowments or trust created by Kotamma under her will was invalid under her personal law, nevertheless, it was acted upon right upto the date of the suit. Each set of trustees managed the two houses and Defendants 2 and 3 were collecting rents only on behalf of the trustees as admitted by the 1st defendant himself as DW2. The conclusion is, therefore irresistible that the trustees constituted as per the provisions of the will were in legal possession of the two houses from 1931 when Koiamma died right upto 1968, and that possession was on behalf of the trust. They were in possession for nearly 37 or 38 years on behalf of the trust and in their capacity as trustees to the exclusion of heirs of Kotamma and everybody else that is to say, the heirs of Kotamma cannot now claim the properties and the trustees have acquired a possessory title against any other possible claimant to the properties. This possessory title is that of the trust though the endowment to start with, was invalid and void. In other words the title of the trust now rests not so much on the provisions of the will, but on the possessory and adverse title acquired for its benefit by continuous and uninterrupted possession its trustees have acquired for over the statutory period. Thus, as on the date of the suit the trust was legal and valid, whatever might have been its infirmity to start with. No person, much less the 1st defendant who had been a trustee, can now question the legality of the ownership of the trust of these two houses."