Basappa vs Shivagangawwa on 12 October, 1987
11. The respondent's Counsel has referred to a decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of SMT CHANDRAVATI v. SHIVAJI MAHARAJ, in which the learned Judge observed that - the word 'assign' used in Section 10 includes the legal representative of the assigns as well. In this view, where a trustee executed a gift deed of one of the properties of a temple in favour of another and after donee's death, his widow remains in possession of the property, she being not the assignee for valuable considerations, the case would be covered by Section 10 and the property in possession could be recovered at any time by the trustees of the temple. If the argument that where the transfer of trust property by trustee is void, and Section 10 will not apply is accepted, Section 10 would become nugatory in case of transfers of trust property specially without consideration and the very purpose of amendment is frustrated. Where, therefore, a trustee of a temple executes a deed of gift in respect of one of its properties as his own, the possession of the donee or of the legal representative of the donee will not be adverse to the deity as he could not assert any adverse title against the deity during the lifetime of the donor trustee and a suit for possession of the property by successor trustees within 12 years of the death of the donor trustee would be within limitation.