AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Report No. 89

Chapter 38

Articles 92 To 96: Suits Relating to Trusts and Trust Property

38.1.Article 92.- Article 92 reads as under:

"92. To recover possession of immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust and afterwards transferred by the trustee for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

When the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff."

The article corresponds to a part of Article Acts, the relevant articles were as under:

Article 134 of the Act of 190.-

"134. To recover possession of immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the trustee or mortgagee for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

When the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff. [Before 1929, the third column read, "the date of the transfer]"

Article 134 of the enactment of 187.-

"134. To recover possession of immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards purchases from the trustee or mortgagee for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

The date of the purchase"

Article 134 of the Act of 187.-

"134. To recover possession of immovable property conveyed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards purchased from the trustee or mortgagee in good faith and for value.

Twelve years.

The date of the purchase."

The amendments effected by the 1963 Act are in consonance with the recommendation of the Law Commission1

1. Law Commission of India, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 1908), paras. 122-130.

38.2.Successor trustee.- In a Calcutta case1 decided with reference to Article 134 of the Act of 1908 as it stood before 1929, a trustee executed on 8th February, 1910 a lease of the trust property in derogation of the trust, and subsequently appointed a successor trustee who filed a suit to set aside the lease on 21st January, 1932. The successor to the original trustee was appointed only on 30th September, 1931.

However, relying on section 2(8) of the Limitation Act, 1908, the court held the successor trustee to be within the definition of the word "plaintiff" and held that the suit was barred by time. With respect, this overlooks the context. The time should now begin to run only from the date of the knowledge of the succeeding trustee who brings the suite2.

1. Srikissan Khanas v. Tarachand Ghatutshyamdas, AIR 1940 Cal 228 (232).

2. Gokuldoss Jamnadoss & Co. v. M. Lakshminarasimhalzt Chetti, AIR 1940 Mad 920-923. [Decision on that part of Article 134 which now forms part of Article 61(b)].

38.3.No change needed.- No other points requiring discussion from the point of view of possible. In this position, no need for amendment in the article have come to our notice, amendment of the article is called for.

38.4.Article 93.- Article 93 reads as Three unde.-

"93. To recover possession of immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust and afterwards afterwards transferred by the trustee for a valuable consideration.

Three years.

When the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff."

The parallel provisions may be found in Article 48A of the Act of 1908 and in Article 133 of the Act of 1877 and 1871. They were as unde.-

Act of 19.-

"48A. To recover movable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust, deposited or pawned, and afterward bought from the trustee, depository pawnee for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

When the sale becomes known to the plaintiff."

Act of 1877

"133. To recover movable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust, deposited or pawned, and afterward bought from the trustee, depository pawnee for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

The date of the purchase."

Act of 1871

"133. To recover movable property conveyed in trust. deposited or pawned and afterwards brought and afterwards brought from the trustee, depository or pawnee in good faith or for value.

Twelve years.

The date of the purchase."

Article 48A in the Act of 1908 was inserted by Act 1 of 1929. It corresponded to the old Article 133, which was repealed, with the third column changed. The starting point of limitation was changed from "the date of purchase" to "when the sale becomes known to the plaintiff". Certain verbal changes were made in 1963, when the Act was re-enacted1.

1. Law Commission of India, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 1908), para. 122.

38.5.No change needed.- No difficulties have arisen under this article as enacted 1964, and no change appears necessary in the article.



The Limitation Act, 1963 Back




Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys