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

Report No. 89

38.6.Articles 94 and 95.- Article 94 reads as unde.-

"94. To set aside a transfer of immovable property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment, made by a manager thereof for a manager thereof for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

When the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff."

In the Act of 1908, the corresponding provision was Article 134A, which was introduced by Act 1 of 1929. It was identical with present Article 94.

Article 95 reads as unde.-

"95. To set aside a transfer of immovable property comprised in a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment, made by a manager thereof for a manager thereof for a valuable consideration.

Three years.

When the transfer becomes known to the plaintiff."

The corresponding article in the Act of 1908 was Article 48B, which was introduced for the first time by Act 1 of 1929. That article was as follow.-

"48B. To set aside a Sale of movable property comprised in a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment made by a manager thereof for a valuable consideration.

Three years.

When the sale becomes known to the plaintiff."

38.7.State laws as to public trusts.- Several States have enacted their own laws to regulate and make better provision for the administration of public trusts. These enactments contain, inter alia, provisions relating to suits concerning public trusts. Thus, under section 50 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 permission of the Charity Commissioner is necessary for the institution of a suit. Then, by section 75C of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959 the right of suit has been specifically granted lo any trustee or any person having an interest in the trust property.

38.8.Recommendation as to Articles 94 to 96.- Reverting to the articles in the Limitation Act, Articles 94-95 of the Limitation Act have not given rise to textual controversies. But we see no reason why Articles 94 to 96 should not apply to religious or charitable endowments created by persons professing the Sikh or Jain faith. The legal doctrines and rules applicable to these endowments are not substantially different from those applicable to Hindus1.

We therefore recommend that Articles 94 to 96 should be extended to Sikh and Jain endowments also.

1. Compare the recommendation as to section 10, supra.

38.9.Article 96.- Article 96 reads as unde.-

"96 By the manager of a Hindu, Muslim or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of movable or immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been transferred by a previous manager for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

The date off death resignation of removal of the transferor or the date of appointment of the plaintiff as manager of the endowment whichever is latter."

The corresponding provisions in the Act of 1908 were Articles 134B and 134C. These articles read as unde.-

"134B. By the manager of a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been transferred by a previous manager for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

The death resignation or removal of the transferor."
134C. By the manager of a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment to recover possession of immovable property comprised in the endowment which has been sold by a previous manager for a valuable consideration.

Twelve years.

The death resignation or removal of the seller."

38.10.History.- In the Act of 1908, these articles were inserted in 1929, resolving the conflict between two Privy Council rulings.1-2 They have been consolidated in Article 96 in the Act of 1963, with the added advantage given to the plaintiff as respects the computation of time. The Law Commission, in its Report on the Act of 1908, took notice of the fact that an interregnum might arise between the removal of one manager and the appointment of a successor, and the successor should not be hamstrung from filing a suit only because of such interregnum3.

Under the present Act, the successor can compute the running of time from the date of his appointment. At the same time, the right of a person interested who may not be the manager to challenge the alienation of a previous manager who is no longer in office has been retained, as otherwise such a person would be required to wait for the appointment of the successor manager which may unnecessarily be delayed4.

1. Vidya Varuthi v. Balusami, AIR 1922 PC 123.

2. Abdul Rahim v. Narayan Das, ILR (1922) 50 Cal 329 (PC).

3. Law Commission of India, 3rd Report (Limitation Act, 1908), para. 12.3.

4. Articles 94-95.

38.11.Recommendation.- The only change required in Article 96 is its extension to Sikh and Jain endowments, as already recommended by us1 while considering Articles 94-95.

1. Para. 38.8, supra.



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