Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, heard a first appeal preferred by the original plaintiffs against the dismissal of their trust suit by the District Court, Osmanabad. The dispute concerned rights over the offerings and income of the Tuljabhavani Temple at Tuljapur. The appellants claimed absolute right based on a grant/sanad said to have been issued by the then ruler Adilshah Nizam in 910 Hijari, granting management and the right to collect offerings to their ancestors. They alleged that certain Patil persons had illegally taken over control of the temple in 1950. After an earlier suit was rejected for want of permission from the Charity Commissioner, the present trust suit was filed in 1991 seeking declaration and injunction. The defendants, including the Collector and other officers as trustees, contested on the ground of limitation and res judicata, asserting that earlier suits had settled rights and the claim was stale. The trial court framed issues and treated the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue. By judgment dated 30.09.1999, it held the suit barred by limitation and dismissed it. In appeal, the appellants argued that Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which exempts suits against trustees from limitation, applied because their claim was based on a trust. The respondents contended that the property of the temple had not vested in the defendants for any specific purpose and the suit was for declaration, not for following trust property. The High Court analyzed Section 10 and held that its protection is limited to cases where property is vested in the defendant for a specific purpose and the suit seeks to follow that property, its proceeds, or an account. The court found from the pleadings and prayers that the appellants sought declaration of vested rights and injunction, not possession, and that the temple property was not vested in the respondents for a specific purpose as contemplated. Consequently, the court rejected the challenge and upheld the trial court's dismissal of the suit as time-barred.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Applicability of Section 10, Limitation Act, 1963 - Suits against trustees and their representatives - Section 10 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The suit was filed in 1991 for declaration of right over offerings and income of Tuljabhavani Temple, based on an ancient grant; the trial court held it barred by limitation. On appeal, the court examined whether Section 10 of the Limitation Act, which provides that no suit against a trustee for following trust property is barred by any length of time, applied. The court found that Section 10 applies only when the property has become vested in the defendant for a specific purpose and the suit is for following the property, its proceeds, or an account. The plaint did not allege that the temple property had vested in the respondents for any specific purpose, and the reliefs sought were declaration and injunction, not possession. Held, Section 10 not attracted, and suit rightly dismissed as time-barred. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit of the appellants is barred by limitation, and whether Section 10 of the Limitation Act exempts the suit from limitation.
Law Points
- Section 10 of Limitation Act applies only to suits against trustees for following trust property or proceeds or account
- not applicable to declaratory suits for right to offerings
- suit barred by limitation if time-barred from cause of action.
