GORDHAN DAS Vs. CHUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against a decree of the Subordinate Judge of. Agra, in a suit brought by them as trustees for a declaration that certain property was endowed, and that the plaintiffs as such trustees might be put into possession of the village of Gauri, a portion of the endowed property. The Court below, while dismissing the plaintiffs) claim for possession, gave a declaration that mauza Gauri was charged with and subject to an annuity of Its. 133 50 for the support of the alleged charity, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to realise this sum from the defendant during the continuance of the charity. Against this decree the plaintiffs have appealed. We have also before us an objection filed by the defendant respondent, under Section 561 of the Civil P. C., the ground of objection being that the property is not endowed property.

(2.) The deed of endowment upon which the plaintiffs rely was executed by Rai Joti Prasad of Agra on the 20 of September 1861. In that document there is a recital that the executant had established a dharamshala at Benares for charitable purposes, and had carried on charity at a cost of Rs. 500 a month. Then it is recited that it was necessary to make a permanent arrangement for the continuance of the charity and for meeting the expenses connected with it, and that therefore the document was executed. In the operative part Joti Prasad purported to set apart the profits of seven villages, one of which is Gauri, for the expenses of the dharamshala and directed that the net profits of those villages should, to the extent of Rs. 500 a month, be applied to charitable purposes (pun) at the dharamshala and that the net profits of the villages should be deposited by way of trust with Bishambar Nath and Din Dayal or those whom they might appoint.

(3.) After the deaths of the trustees, their widows Rani Kanno Dei and Rani Hira Dei took upon them the management of the property comprised in the deed of endowment, and on the 12 of January 1903, Rani Hira Dei sold the village of Gauri to the defendant, Seth Chunni Lal, who is now in possession of it. By order of the 25 of January 1904, Hira Dei was removed from the office of trustee and the plaintiffs were appointed trustees of the endowment. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was then brought by them on the 17 of May 1904 and it is only concerned with the village of Gauri, the plaintiffs claiming possession of it alone. Seth Chunni Lal alone defended the suit, and his sole defence was that the property in dispute was not endowed property, and that the alleged deed of endowment was never acted on.