Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that no Trust has been created and there is no permanent dedication or partial dedication of any property. There was only a charge in respect of the property to do certain obligations and it is also carried on. There is a specific recital in the document itself that the balance of money can be spent by Balasubramaniam as well as his legal heirs. Moreover, the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit because he was not a trustee of the alleged trust. The rear portion of door No.43 is in the possession of one Kalyani Ammal and she had converted the building into a terraced one and door No.42 is in the possession of one Vijayaraghavan and both of them were not impleaded as parties to the suit. Moreover, the transaction took place as early as 1960 and 1965 and the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property since 1965and on this ground also, the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by time.

15. It is therefore clear from the aforesaid decisions that even a worshipper is entitled to file a suit and as such, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the suit is maintainable under law. The only question that has to be considered is whether there was permanent dedication of the property or partial dedication of the property or only a charge was created to do their religious activities mentioned in the Will. The intention of the testator also has to be gathered from the various circumstances. It is also clear from Article 92 of the Limitation Act under Part VIII, suits relating to Trusts and Trust property. To recover possession of immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust and afterwards transferred by the trustee for a valuable consideration, the period of limitation is 12 years and the time will begin to run when the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff. If that is taken into consideration, it is manifestly clear that in any event, the suit filed by the plaintiff also would be barred by time. The first sale transaction took place in the year 1960 and the defendant purchased the property in the year 1965 for a valid consideration. The suit was filed only on 18.03.1985. It is not the case of the plaintiff that he was not aware of the sale transaction. Now, the suit has been filed after the lapse of 20 years and on this ground also, the suit has to necessarily fail.