T SNATESHMURTHY Vs. GOVERNMENT OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from a suit for possession of the lands described in the plaint schedule and mesne profits. The plaintiffs are the sons of the purchaser of these properties at a Court sale held in execution of a mortgage decree obtained by him against two persons Mallikarjunaswamy and his father Mallappa. Defendant is the Government of Mysore whose servants are said to have wrongfully dispossessed the plaintiffs. That the properties were hypothecated to plaintiff's father 'under a registered deed, Ex. A, dated 20-6-1932 executed by Mallappa and his son, that the mortgage was sued upon in O. S. No. 77 of 43-44, that in Execution Case No. 108 of 43-14 the properties were purchased by plaintiffs' father in satisfaction of the decree and that subsequent proceedings in Mis. 101 of 45-46 also indicate delivery may all be deemed to be proved. The suit is dismissed on the ground that the properties did not belong to the defendant-judgment-debtors but to the Channabasavaswamy Mutt of Poorigali, that the management of the properties was taken over by Government under an order dated 7-12-1938 and that the proceedings relied upon are not binding on the Mutt.

(2.) Although it was alleged in the pleadings that the lands in dispute were the property of defendant, it is not and cannot be now disputed that the Mutt is the real owner. There is overwhelming evidence to show this and unqualified admission of the judgment-debtors themselves in the petitions and statements previously made by them (See Ex. 12) to support it. The argument that 3rd item should at least be held to be the private property of the defendants cannot be accepted as the prior admission was absolute and unqualified with respect to all the items and the evidence shows that it was acquired with the aid of Mutt properties and treated as such. It is also clear that as a result of the complaints about mismanagement of the properties an order was passed by Government on 7-12-1938 after enquiry for vesting the management in Government and possession of the properties was actually taken by the officers of Government on 29-5-1941.

(3.) The contention of Sri Lakshminarayana Rao learned Counsel for appellants is that the mortgagors who were the defendants in the case were the managers of the Mutt, the amounts were utilised for the benefit of the Mutt and therefore the proceedings culminating in the Court sale are binding on the Mutt and Government. For one thing this is not the ground on which relief was claimed in the plaint and the prior litigation too proceeded on the footing that the lands were the private property of defendants. Secondly the defendants, having ceased to be the managers and being deprived of the properties could not represent the Mutt in the proceedings for enforcement of the mortgage. Whatever may be the effect of these against the defendants, the rights of the Mutt as owner of the lands remain undisturbed. The question at present is not whether the debt was contracted for a purpose binding on the Mutt but whether the suit and the subsequent proceedings are binding on it. The debtors may have been the managers at the time the mortgages were effected but had ceased to be so when, the suit was filed. 43 Mys. 466 (A) cited for Appellants cannot be considered as supporting the view that persons who arc deprived of management of Mutt by an order passed in accordance with law can act for or on behalf of the Mutt.