KAMALU PUJARTHI Vs. LAXMINARAYANA BHATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the appellant formulated two question of law for the consideration of this Court. They are: (1) the Courts below misread the evidence in arriving at the conclusion that the plaint temple is the owner of the suit properties and (2) that the suit is barred by limitation or at any rate by adverse-possession.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the plaint temple is the owner of the suit properties and the same were in possession of the Archakas of the temple as service tenure-holders; now that the Archakas have been removed from their service, the plaint temple is entitled to recover possession of the suit properties. According to the defendant, the suit properties were the absolute properties of the family of Ranganna Bhatta and all of them excepting S. No 59/8 were sold in court auction in R.E.P. No. 919 of 1935 on the file of the learned District Munsiff. Udipi, on 21-4-1935 and purchased by one Ramacharya, who took delivery of the same after his purchase. The said Ramacharya sold those properties to the defendant on 14-10-1941 as per Ex. B-10 and ever since then, she is in possession of the same. Survey No. 59/8 was sold in Court auction in R.E.P. NO. 286/43 on 12-1-1944 in execution of the decree in O. S. 436/41 obtained by one Krishnacharya against Ranganna Bhatta and purchased by the decree-holder Krishnacharya. The said Krishnacharya sold that property to the defendant is in possession of the same ever since her purchase. The defendant contends that even. If the suit properties were the properties of the plaint-temple, the temple was never in possession of the same for over 12 years from the date of the suit and further that she and her predecessors-in-title have perfected their title by adverse possession, as a result of which the plaint-temple has lost its right, title and interest in the same.

(3.) Both the courts below have concurrently held that the title to the suit properties vests with the plaint-temple. It is established by evidence that the suit properties were included in Geni Warg No. 1 of Aryadi village which village is now merged in Pangala village. Exhibit A-3 is the certified copy of the Durmuthi Chitta relating to Geni Warg No. 1 of Aryadi village, Exhibit A-4 is the certified copy of the Inam Zabita or Chitta for the year Rowdri. Ex. A-5 is the certified copy of the Azmoish Chitta relating to the Geni Warg No. 1 of Aryadi village. In that document, there is a reference to one Adiga Venkataramana Bhatta who is alleged had refused to do service to the temple as the tasdik was too small. The evidence of P.W. 2 shows that Adiga Venkatarammana Bhatta was a member of the family of the service-holders. Exhibit A-7 is the certified copy of Barthi Kambarthi register of Geni Warg. No. 1. From Ex. A-7, it is seen that Geni Warg No. 1 properties had been divided into 6 kudthalas (shares). From the evidence of P.W. 2, it is clear that the division in question refers to the partition in the family of the service holders. From Exs. A-18 and A-19(certified printed copy of the judgment in OS. No. 195-41 on the file of the Court of the District Munsiff, Udipi and certified copy of the judgment in A.S. No. 88/49 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of South Kanara respectively) it is seen that it was decided in those proceedings that Geni Warg No. 1 properties belonged to the plaint-temple. Documentary as well as the oral evidence in the case fully establish the plaintiff's title. The findings of the courts below are findings of facts and are not open for reconsideration by this Court.