Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(8) The creditor shall have and shall continue to have all powers and rights of sale by auction which the decree-holder in suit No. 41 of 1921 aforesaid has in satisfaction of which the property has been advertised for sale.

22. "Suit No. 41 of 1921" in Clause 8 is a slip for appeal No. 41 of 1921 that being the appeal against the decree in Suit No. 141 of 1919.

23. On July 27, 1927, Kishan Lal and others as "worshippers of the temple" of the idol instituted suit No. 85 of 1927 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Allahabad against respondent No. 1 and Gopi Nath, the surviving trustees of the idol and its properties, for a declaration that properties Nos. 14 and 15 be declared a wakf property belonging to respondent No. 4 (the idol) and that the defendants are trustees. In para. 11 of the plaint it was set out that respondent No. 1 now claimed the property and denied it to be wakf property belonging to respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed a written statement in which he stated, amongst other pleas, that he was not in possession of the properties under any trust, nor was the property wakf. He said this was so, as a result of the decision in suit No. 95 of 1913, the suit by the Secretary of State for India-and of the litigations carried on by his father against tenants by which the wakf created by Lalti Bibi became infructuous, and the whole property went into the possession of Mukandi Lal on whose death he and his brother succeeded to it. The Subordinate Judge held that it was not shown that Jagannath had given authority to his' wife to create a trust and that therefore the property was not trust property. On May 11, 1932, the High Court on appeal held that Lalta Bibi had made the wakj on the authority of her husband that the property was validly dedicated by her to the idol as a public endowment and that respondent No. 1 and Gopi Nath had become validly appointed trustees. The decree of the Subordinate Judge was accordingly set aside. Against this decree an appeal was filed in the Privy Council and on March 5, 1936, was dismissed, for want of prosecution.