AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
We think the District Judge was wrong in disposing: of the suit ?without finding whether the plaintiff''s father had acquired a valid title to the
trusteeship by adverse possession. The Will (Exhibit B) recites that the Dharmakartaship was hereditary in the testator''s family and provides that
as he had only daughters and no sons, his daughter''s son should be Dharmakarta in his place. We think the plaintiff''s father, if he took under Will,
must be considered to have prescribed for the estate which the Will purports to confer upon him, viz., that of a hereditary trustee, and that if his
title was perfected by adverse possession he must be considered to have held a hereditary trusteeship with all the incidents attaching thereto
including the plaintiff''s right of succession on the occurrence of 1 vacancy Gopinadha Pande v. Ramachandra Punigrahi 6 M.L.J. 255.
We may add that an attempt was made to question the validity of resignation of the plaintiff''s father and the consequent vacancy in the office,
but we refused to go into this of being opinion that no such question had been raised in the lower Courts and that the validity of the resignation had
been assumed by all parties. We must accordingly set aside the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law.
Costs will abide the event.