BAIDYANATHJI Vs. MATT URMILA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which their Lordships have to determine in this appeal is whether the properties of the Baidyanath temple were vested in trust in the high priest of the temple within the meaning of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act (IX) of 1908. If the answer to this question is in the affirmative, the appellant's suit is not barred by any length of time and this appeal must succeed.

(2.) THE suit was brought in the name of the deity of the temple, through the present high priest, against respondent No.1 (who is the widow and executrix of the late high priest), to recover from her the principal moneys amounting to Rs. 4,200 due on certain war bonds (which formed part of the temple properties, but were retained by the widow as such executrix), together with a sum of interest thereon amounting to Rs. 2,577-8-0.

(3.) THEIR Lordships are unable to agree with the High Court; they agree with the view and reasoning of the Subordinate Judge.