LAWS(APH)-1974-11-24

C V PURUSHOTHAM Vs. CHINNA JEEYANGAR MUTT TIRUPATI

Decided On November 27, 1974
C.V.PURUSHOTHAM Appellant
V/S
CHINNA JEEYANGAR MUTT TIRUPATI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O. S. No. 81 of 1965 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judges Court Chittoor is the appellant. The plaintiff in the suit is a Mutt at Tirupathi represented by the present Matadhipathi. The suit was filed for a declaration that the permanent lease executed by the then Mathadhipathi on the 19th Chaitra of Vikari Corresponding to 1898 in favour of one, 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 for possession and mesne profits, past and future. According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to the plaintiff mutt. One of the previous heads of the mutt executed a permanent lease in 1898 in favour of Govindachari. The grandson of the lessee sold the suit property in 1920 to one Ramaswamy Chatty who in turn sold (it) in 1927 to Katari Narasimhulu Reddv and another. Both of them sold (it) again to Pedda Subba Reddy in 1928. On 19-4-1940 the said Pedda Subba Reddy sold the property to the father of defendants 1 to 4. In a partition between the members of the defendants family it fell to the share of the first defendant. The plaintiff contended that the permanent lease constituted an alienation of the property and was not binding upon the mutt. The plaintiff therefore claimed a declaration that the lease was not binding and for recovery of possession of the property from the defendants.

(2.) The Mathadhipathi who granted the lease in 1898 died on 13-9-1906. There were number of Mathadhipathis who succeeded one after another. The last of them died on 21-9-1960 and the plaintiff was appointed on 16-5-1960.

(3.) The defendants contended that the lease was for necessity and was therefore binding on the mutt. They also contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court held that the permanent lease was supported by necessity end was binding on the mutt. It also held that the defendants had perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. In the result It dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff-mutt preferred A. S. No. 508/70 to this court. Our learned brother, Venkatarama Sastry, J., took the view that the suit was not barred by limitation. He also held that he could not agree with the finding of the lower court that, the permanent lease was supported by legal necessity. In the result, the judgment of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed. A declaration was granted that the permanent lease Was not binding on the mutt and that the mutt was entitled to recover possession of the suit property, Jt. was directed that the mesne profits both past and future should be enquired into in a separate application.