D KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. C RAMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 3 to 6 are the appellants in this appeal, which is directed against the decree and judgment of a learned single judge of this Court in AS.111/79. The facts of the case in brief are: there is a religious institution by name Rathi Matham (Stone Matham) which is founded by the ancestors of the first plaintiff's husband. After the death of her husband the first plaintiff was in management of the said Matham. The Matham has four mulgis attached to it. The first plaintiff executed a registered settlement deed Ex. B-l dated 10-6-64 whereunder she transferred the entire property belonging to the Math in favour of D-l to D-4. Although it was recited in Ex. B-l that possession was delivered to D-l to D-4, it is not in dispute that the possession of the property still remained with the plaintiffs. D-l to D-4 executed an agreement Ex. A-6 dated 30-6-64 where under they agreed that if the first plaintiff nominates her successor they will not have any objection to transfer the management. While so the plaintiff also executed a registered will Ex. A-5 dated 4-2-71 whereunder she bequethed her entire properties in favour of one Umapathi Swami. She then filed OS 26 of 79 for a declaration that the registered gift deed Ex. B-l is void and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession, and enjoyment. She died on 15-9-73 and after her death the second plaintiff was brought on record who also later died and plaintiffs 3 to 6 were brought on record as L Rs of the second defendant (sic. plaintiff)- The Defendants 1 to 4 contended that they are not claiming any ownership rights in the said property but they stated that it is a public charitably trust. They also contended that the gift deed Ex. B-l was not executed on account of fraud or coersion and it is a valid document. They pleaded that they are entitled to be in management of the property by virtue of Ex. B-l The trial Court after framing necessary issues held that the property is not a public is not a public charitable trust; that the agreement Ex. A-6 is true and binding; that the registered will Ex. A-5 is true and valid and that plaintiffs alone are in possession. However, the trial court dismissed the suit recording a finding that the defendants alone have the right to management. It also held that under Article 59 of the Indian Limitation Act, the plaintiffs ought to have filed the suit within three years from the date of knowledge of the execution of B-l and, therefore, thesuitis barred by limitation. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendants 1 to 4 (sic plaintiff 3 to 6) preferred A.S. 111 of 1979. The learned single judge also dismissed the appeal confirming the decree of the trial court. Challenging this decree and judgment, plaintiffs 3 to 6 filed the above Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) Shri Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants contended that Ex. B-l is a void document inasmuch as it transfers the entire Math properties in favour of the defendants 1 to 4. He also contended that Article 59 of the Limitation Act has no application to the facte of this case.

(3.) Shri Dharma Rao, learned counsel for the respondents countered these arguments submitting that Article 59 of the Limitation Act will apply to the case on hand since the suit which was filed to set aside Ex. B-l should have been filed within a period of three years from the date of knowledge of the execution of Ex. B-l.