CHINNA JEEYANGAR MUTT THIRUPATHI Vs. C V PURUSHOTHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main point that arises in this appeal is about limitation. It is necessary to state a few facts in order to appreciate the position.

(2.) The appellant herein instituted the suit O. S. 81 of 1965 on the file of Sub-ordinate Judges Court, Chittoor for the declaration that the permanent lease executed by the previous head of the mutt on 19th Chitra of Vikari year in favour of Govindachari and the subsequent alienation on 19-4-1940 in favour of C. V. Ramanujam, father of defendants 1 to 4, are void inoperative and not binding on the plaintiff mutt, and that there has been a forfeiture of the said lease by non-performance of the conditions of the lease, for possession and mesne profits, past and future. According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff mutt having been granted in inam to a previous head of the mutt by then ruler for the general maintenance of the plaintiff mutt. It was also confirmed at the time of Inam Commission on 16-5-1965, which issued also title deed No. 2460, to the plaintiff mutt. The said inam was confirmed as Devadayam Inam for the purpose of service to be rendered by Sri Chinna Jeeyangar Swami in Tirumalai Tirupathi Devasthanams. Under the provisions of Andhra Inams Abolition Act (Act XXXVII of 1965) a ryotwari patta was also granted for this inam in favour of the mutt under Section 4 of the said Act. As the suit land is religious endowment it was inalienable in character, except in case of unavoidable necessity or clear benefit to the mutt. While so, one of the previous heads of the mutt executed a permanent lease in 1989 in favour of one Komandur Govinda Chari. The grandson of that lesee sold the suit property in 1920 to one Pandguluru Kuppu Ramaswamy Chetty of Thirupathi, who in his turn sold it in 1927 to Katari Narasimhalu Reddy and Chamarthi Narayana Reddy, both of them sold the suit property in 1928 to one Remala Pedda Subba Reddy. On 19-4-1940 the said Pedda Subba Reddy sold the same to the father of the defendants 1 to 4. In a partition between the members of the defendants family it fell to the share of the first defendant. 6th defendant in their lessee. The permanent lease of 1898 was for a very low rent. The deed provided for the cancellation of the lease and the re-entry by the lessor in default of payment of rent for two consecutive years and the recitals in the document do not prima facie show the existence of any unavoidable necessity or clear benefit to the mutt. Plaintiff therefore attacked the permanent lease as an alienation by a previous manager of the mutt not binding upon the plaintiff institution. As it is a violable one, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of possession of the property covered by the said alienations. The said alienations constitute a breach, of duty on the part of the head of the institution. Plaintiff further sates that the rent payable under the lease also has not been paid at all. Plaintiff gave a notice prior to the suit on 15-5-1963 to the first defendant calling upon him to surrender possession, but the first defendant has not complied with it. Plaintiff was appointed as the head of the mutt on 16-5-1960, when he assumed the office as Chinna Jiyyanagar. Plaintiff therefore based the cause of action for the suit on the date o the permanent lease and also on the date of his appointment to the office as manager.

(3.) In the written statement filed by the first defendant he contested the claim of the plaintiff mutt. The original permanent lease stipulated payment of Rs. 10-8-0 per year as the rent and it was a fair rent and not a low one. There was no clause providing in the lease for re-entry. The lease was for necessity and benefit to the mutt. Prior to the lease the mutt was not deriving any income from the lands. It was assured of the rent specified in the document, apart from the fact that the Government cist was also made payable by the lesse. The lease was not a void one. The present Matadhipathi is bound by the said alienation. The present Mathadhipathi is the 6th person in succession to the office of Chinna Jiyyangar, after the alienating Jiyyangar. He has no right to question the lease as violable at his option at this distance of time. The suit for such a relief is barred by limitation. It is not correct t say that the lease amount has not been paid to the plaintiff. The provisions of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 have no application. If the lease is considered to be violable, he and his predecessors in title have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. If the lease is considered to be a void one, the suit by the present plaintiff is barred by time. Plaintiffs appointment on 16-5-1960 will not give him a cause of action to file this suit. 6th defendant has been evicted from possession by virtue of an order passed by the Tahsildar, Chandragiri under the Andhra Tenancy act on 16-5-1965. He is not, therefore a necessary party. The plaintiff is not entitled to any of the reliefs.