JAGADGURU GURUSHIDDASWAMI versus DAKSHINA MAHARASHTRA DIGAMBAR JAIN SABHA

Citation: [1954] 1 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 14-10-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
) 
S.O.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 
235 
assets which were the subject-matter of partition bet-
1953! 
ween the partners. Even if the partition be not treat-
Sir K ikabhai 
ed as a sale it was a transfer of property, the property 
Premchand 
of the firm being transferred to the individual partners 
v. 
thereof and each partner obtaining an absolute inter-. Commissioner of 
est in the shares thus transferred to him by the firm 
Income-tax · 
to the exclusion of the other partners therein. So far 
c;entral), 
as the firm was concerned it was certainly a transfer 
ombay. 
of the property to the individual partners and even as 
Bhagwati J. 
regards the partners themselves it was a transfer of 
the interest of the partners inter se in the shares res-
pectively transferred absolutely to each of them. If 
it were necessary to do so I would certainly say that 
the case was erroneously decided. [See also the judg-
ment of Fletcher Moulton L. J. in In re. Spanish 
Prospecting Co., Ltd.(')]. 
The result therefore is that the answers given by the 
High Court to both the questions referred to it were 
correct and the appeal must be dismissed with costs. 
Appeal allowed. 
Agent for the appellant: Rajinder Narain. 
Agent for the respondent: G. H. Rajadhyaksha. 
JAGADGURU GURUSHIDDASWAMI 
• 
v. 
DAKSHINA MAHARASHTRA DIGAMBAR 
JAIN SABHA. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, MuKHER.JEA, and 
JAGANNADHADAS J,J,] 
Religions endowinent.1-Perm<me11t lease by head of math-
Demise by lessee by wa11 of gift~ Decree obtained by s1wceedin.g head 
aga.inst heirs of lessee for recovery of possession-Whether binding 
on donee-Fresh wit against donee-Maintainnbility-Limitati011. 
-Liniitation Act (IX of 1908), s. JOA, Art. ]34B-"Val11able 
consideration" menning of. 
(J) [1911] 1 Ch. 92 atp. 98, 
, 
1963 
Oct. 14. 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1954) 
1953 
In 1887 the head of • math granted • permanent lease of pro· 
party belonging to the math. In 1910 the lessee's successor in 
Jagadguru 
interest made a gift of the leased premises to a Jain Sabha for 
Guri1shiddaswa1ni constructing a school thereon with the condition that if the school 
v. 
was re1noved from the site or ceased to exist, the site should 
Dakshina 
revert to the donor. In 192[) the plaintiff became head of the rna.th 
Mqharaehtra 
and in 1932 he instituted a suit for eject1nent against the heirs of 
Digambar Jain the lessee alleging that the lease was not binding on the math and 
Sabha. 
obtained a decree for possession. The Jain Sabha ho\\'0Ver was not 
effectively made a party to the suit and was dismissed from it. In 
l943 the plaintiff instituted a suit against the .lain Sabha for pos-
session; and it was contended, inte1· alia, on his behalf} that the 
Jain Sabha ai:i a sub-lessee under the defendants in the earlier suit 
was bound by the decree obtained therein: 
Helcl, (i) that the rule of law that a sub-lessee would be bound 
by a decree for possession obtained by the landlord against the 
lessee was not applicable to the present case, because (a) the suit 
of 1932 was not a suit by a landlord to evict his lessee but was a 
suit based on title to eject the heirs of the lessee on the ground 
that they were trespassers, and (b) because the lands were not 
given to the Sabha by way of sublease, but by way of gift ; 
(ii) the suit was not saved by s. 10 of the Limitation Act as 
the lease was for valuable consideration and the defendant was not 
therefore precluded by reason of the !act that the property was to 
his,knowledge trust property, from relying on the provision of the 
law 'vhich prescribes the tin1e \vitbin which such a suit should be 
brought. 
The expression "valuable Consideration" has a \Yell-known 
connotation in 
la.~v and is 
not synonymous 'vith "adequate 
consideration.'' 
CIVIL 
APPELLATB 
,JURISDICTION: 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 187 of 1952. 
• 
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 
19th day of October, 1949, of the High Court of Judi-
cature at Bombay (Bavdekar and Dixit ,JJ.) in Appeal 
from Original Decree No. 275 of 1946 arising out of 
the Judgment and Decree dated the 17th day of 
December, 1945, in Special Civil Suit No. 21 of 1944 of 
the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hubli. 
M. C. Setalvad, Attornr,y-General for India (.I.· B. 
Dadachanji, with him) for the appellant. 
G. R. Madhbhavi (K. R. Bengeri, with him) for the 
respondent, 
,. 
S.C.R, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
237 
1953. 
October 14. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
1963 
Ja

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.