PUTTI SETHU RAO Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point argued in appeal is the question of limitation. The facts necessary for understanding how the question arises may be briefly stated. The suit is by the trustee of the temple of Venkatramanaswami, in Tandoni village (Karur taluk, Trichinopoly district) to recover from the defendants, who are the sthaneekas and archakas of the temple, the collection of offerings of money, etc., in the hundials of the temple. The plaint is dated 15th August, 1919. The offerings sought to be recovered cover the period 25th August, 1911 to 31st August 1914. To avoid the obvious bar of limitation, the facts next to be mentioned are relied on. In 1893 by Exhibit M, the then members of the Devasthanam Committee granted a perpetual lease of the right to collect the offerings to the predecessors-in-title of the defendants. On 25th August 1911, two worshippers of the temple filed a suit to declare that the lease is invalid and not binding on the temple. (O.S. No. 923 of 1911). On a petition for temporary injunction, the District Munsif passed an order, on 12bh October, 1911, permitting the defendants to continue the collecting of the offerings, after executing certain security bonds. The suit was dismissed on 22nd February, 1913. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge decided (on 15th December, 1913) that the lease was invalid, but held that the defendants were entitled to collect all the offerings below eight annas. On second appeal the High Court decided against the defendants (22nd September, 1916); see Kalyan Venkataramana Ayyangar v. Kasturiranga Ayyangar (1917) 40 Mad. 212 and the decision certainly operated from 25th August, 1911.

(2.) It is now claimed that the period between 22nd February, 1913 and the order of the High Court must be excluded in computing the limitation against the plaintiff. It is alleged that during this period the decrees of the Distiot Munsif and the Subordinate Judge were against the plaintiff and were in force. Not until the High Court declared the plaintiff s right could the plaintiff sue. Even if this argument is oorrect the Subordinate Judge decided as to sums above 8 annas against the defendants on 16th December, 1913, and there was nothing to prevent the present suit from being brought, after 15th December, 1913, and before 22nd September, 1916. The plaintiff s argument has still to be considered, for sums below eight annas.

(3.) The appellant s learned vakil contends that the judgments of the Courts - the District Munsif and the Subordinate Judge must be obeyed and respected, and only on 22nd September, 1916, when they were reversed, defendants could be sued. This argument assumes that the present plaintiff (the trustee), who was not a party to the former suit is bound by the judgments in the former litigation. The appellant relies on Chidambaranath Thambiran v. Nallasiva Mudaliar (1918) 41 Mad. 124 and Kadir Mastan Rowther v. Sengammal (1920) 43 Mad. 433. The idol of a temple, represented by a trustee, can certainly take the benefit of the judgment in a suit by worshippers for the benefit of the trust. It is doubtful whether the idol is bound by an adverse judgment in a suit by worshippers. It cannot be said that the worshippers represent the temple within the meaning of Section 11, Civil Procedure Code, It is unnecessary to discuss this question further, as, in my opinion, even if the plaintiffs are identical, the former litigation does not help to stop or suspend limitation.