PUTTAVEERAMMA Vs. KRISHNANANDASARASWATHI SWAMIGALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the legal representatives of the plaintiff; respondents are defendants. The suit in the trial Court was filed for a declaration of title and possession of the land S. No.37, measuring 10 acres 19 guntas, which was purchased by the plaintiff in a Court sale in execution of a money decree obtained by him against the 1st defendant who is the Swamiji of Balakrishnananda Mutt located in T.Narasipur Taluk, Mysore District. The second defendant is the State of Mysore. On 16-9-1946, the State Government took over the management of the Mutt and its properties under S.25 of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, (Act VII of 1927) . The 3rd defendant is the Tahsildar who exercises the powers under the Act. Defendants 4,5 and 6 are the tenants inducted by the Government in pursuance of the sale of the rights of cultivation under a five years' lease. Both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(2.) The first defendant remained exparte. Defendants 2 and 3 pleaded that the first defendant contracted several debts without any legal necessity or for the benefit of the Mutt and all such debts are illegal and not binding on the Mutt properties. It was also pleaded that the decree obtained by the plaintiff and the subsequent sale and delivery proceedings are illegal, fraudulent and collusive that the first defendant had no power to contract debts for and on behalf of the Mutt and that the decree and the execution and other proceeedings even if true do not bind the Mutt since the suit schedule property was not liable to be attached or sold for realisation of the decretal amount.

(3.) Issue No.3 framed in the suit is whether the pronote debt in Small Cause Suit No.1115/44-45 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge's Court and the decree obtained thereon is illegal vitiated by fraud and not binding on the defendants. It was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the debt on which the decree was obtained was not a debt on a promissory note, and the reference to the debt as pronote debt in the said issue in a mistake. The trial Court held that the decree obtained against the first defendant was in his individual capacity and not aa head of the Mutt. It further held on issue No.3 that it was not open to the Court at this length of time to go into the question of validity or otherwise of the decree and that whatever may be the nature of the decree it was against the 1st defendant and that it cannot have any effect on the other defendants or the suit schedule properties. The legal representatives of the plaintiff went up in appeal to the Court of the Civil Judge, Mysore. The lower appellate Court also held that the decree obtained by the plaintiff was against the 1st defendant personally. Since it was proved that the 1st defendant has his own private property and since there was no evidence that the first defendant borrowed for legal necessity of the Mutt, the lower appellate Court held that it does not bind the Mutt properties. It was contended on behalf of the appellants when the present appeal came up for hearing on an earlier occasion that the findings of the lower Courts both with regard to the decree being only against the person of the first defendant and not as head of the Mutt, as well a that the decree is not binding, on the Mutt properties as the debt incurred by the 1st defendant was not for legal necessity are findings on questions which are not covered by the issues in the case. Hence, two additional issues were framed and the trial Court was directed to afford the parties opportunity to adduce fresh evidence on the two additional issues and to record its findings thereon. The two additional issues are, firstly, whether the decree in the Small Cause Suit No.1115/44-45 was obtained against the first defendant in his capacity as head of the Mutt; and secondly, whether the debts sued upon in Small Cause Suit No. 1115/44-45 contracted by the first defendant were for the purpose of legal necessity and binding on the Mutt. PWs. 4 & 5 were examined on behalf the plaintiff and Exts.P7, P7(a) and P7(e) were produced before the lower Court. The lower Court has given its findings on the two additional issues in favour of the plaintiff. It has held that the decree in the Small Cause Suit was obtained against the 1st defendant in his capacity as head of the Mutt and further that the debts sued upon in the Small Cause Suit are contracted by the first defendant for the purpose of legal necessity and that they are binding on the Mutt of which the first defendant was the Head.