MEER AHMED ALI KHAN Vs. MOMEN BEGUM
LAWS(APH)-1969-6-12
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 27,1969

MEER AHMED ALI KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
MOMEN BEGUM Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. P SADANANDA MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2001-2-5] [REFERRED TO]
LAMBADI PEDDA BHADRU VS. MOHD ALI HUSSAIN [LAWS(APH)-2003-7-118] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This writ petition raises some important questions under the Hyderabad Record of Rights in Land Regulations, 1358 Fasli and the applicability of the doctrine of resjudicata to proceedings under Section 15 (2) of the Regulations I think it desirable that the matter may be decided authoritatively by a Bench. I, therefore, direct tbat the writ petition may be posted before a Bench. In pursuance of the above order this case came on for final hearing before the Bench consisting of the Hon'ble Mr, N. Kumarayya, acting Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kondaiah. Mr Jaleel Ahmed Advocate for the petitioner. Mr N. Narasimha Iyengar Advocate for the 1st respondent, 3rd Government Pleader on behalf of the 2nd respondent.
(2.)This is a petition for issue of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing the order of the Additional Collector, Medak, dated 17-4-1965, whereby he, in exercise of his powers under S. 15 (2) of the Hyderabad Record of cases, bis only claim is that he is in actual possession, of the office; "De facto" means "by the title of possession" in antithesis to "de juri" i. e. by the title of right, 1949 (2) M. L. J, 171 followed, No person who has accepted the position as a trustee and has acquired property in that capacity can be permitted to assert an adverse title on his own behalf until he has obtained a proper discharge from the trust with which be has clothed himself. I, L, R, 34 Madras 251 followed, The scope of section 10 of the Limitation Act is that it grants a total exemption from the bar of limitation in regard to the suits mentioned therein.
(3.)So long as the trustee continued to hold the properties in trust for the temple under certain obligations to be discharged by them they are not in the position of trustees de son tort and cannot invoke Article 134-B of the Limitation Act. 1953 (2) M. L, J, 382; A. I. R, 1955 Mad, 18 followed, The bar of Limitation does not stand in the way of the plaintiff to recover possession of the property belonging to the temple and ask for the accounts from the defendant.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.