Law: Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)

Section: Ss. 123 & 129

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: O. XXI, rr. 58, 59 & 60

Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 123 & 129---- Trustees in pursuance of trust deed transferring immovable property of considerable value to another trust by oral gift --Neither trustees nor beneficiaries, required to be Muslim under trust but by chance ail trustees happening to be Muslims at tune of slaking gift-Gift cannot be made valid by involving S. 129 and excluding application of S. 123.   Trust-Trustee has two capacities or personalities --Personal and as trustee.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXI, rr. 58, 59 & 60-Scope of inquiry-Deed, under which claimant professed to be in possession not effective for want of registration-Claim cannot be allowed.   Where it was contended that under Order XXI, rules 58 to 60 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the scope of enquiry in these proceedings is limited to the considerations as to whether an objector has some interest in the property which has been attached, and whether he was possessed of the attached property at the time of attachment or not:   Held: the mere fact of possession is not sufficient, because even the property found in the possession of a judgment-debtor, but not on his own account or as his own property, cannot be sold in execution of a decree if the decree is against the judgment-debtor personally. The Code does not prescribe the extent to which the investigation should go; and though in some cases it may be very proper that there should be as full an investigation as if a suit were instituted for the very purpose of trying the question, in other cases it may also be the most prudent and proper course to deliver an opinion upon such facts as are before the Court at the time, leaving the aggrieved party to bring the suit which the law allows to him. Where the deed under which the claimant professes to be in possession is found to be invalid for want of registration, the claim cannot be allowed and so the consideration of right and title in such a case is not irrelevant because it explains the nature of possession.   Bachu Lal v. Ram Din A I R 1939 All. 117 ref.   Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Pershad (1888) 15 I A 123 and Amirchand v. Ram Soran…