VIDYA VARUTHI THIRTHA Vs. BALUSAMI AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit that has given rise to this appeal relates to certain lands lying in the town of Madura in the Madras Presidency which admittedly belong to an old math situated within the Mysore State, The origin, development, and raison d etre of these maths have been discussed in a number of cases decided in the Madras High Court to some of which their Lordships propose to refer in the course of this judgment. In their general characteristics they are almost identical with similar institutions in Northern India and in the Bombay Presidency. The heads of these foundations bear different designations in respect of the rights and incidents attached to the office; the difference arises from the customs and usages of each institution. The superior of this particular math has been called in these proceedings matathipathi and sometimes pandara sannadhi, which their Lordships understand connote the same idea of headship. At the time this action was brought, the 26 defendant held the office of matathipathi. He has since died and the present appellant is the head of the institution. In 1891 one Srinivasa was the matathipathi and he on March 17 of that year granted to the 2nd plaintiff, a near relative, a permanent lease of the lands in the suit, on a small quit rent of Rs. 24 a year. Shortly after the grant of the lease Srinivasa died, and was succeeded by one Samudra, who held the office until 1906, On his death the now deceased defendant No. 26 became the bead. In 1902 the 2nd plaintiff sub-leased the lands to the 1 and 2nd defendants for a period of ten years.

(2.) Since 1905 the math has been under the management of the Mysore State under a power of attorney, executed at first by the matathipathi Samudra and afterwards by his successor, in favour of the Dewan and his successors in office. About the same time the 2nd plaintiff conjointly with his son (the 3 plaintiff) assigned their right and interest in the lands in suit to the 1 plaintiff. It is in evidence and, so far as appears from the judgments of the two Courts in India, does not appear to be contradicted, that it was only in 1908 that the representative of the Dewan, acting under the power granted by the matathipathi, became aware of the transaction of 1891 under which the plaintiffs claim title. The sub-lease created in 1902 by the 2nd plaintiff in favour of the 1 and 2nd defendants was to have expired in 1912. But before its expiry they obtained a lease for seventeen years from the representative of the Dewan. They are BOW in possession of the lands in suit under this lease. The plaintiffs are and were at the time they brought their suit on March 5, 1918, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Madura, admittedly out of possession. The present action is for declaration of title and for ejectment and possession, principally directed against the matathipathi as the head of the math and the 1 and 2nd defendants lessees holding possession under him. The other defendants have been joined as parties apparently in consequence of certain rights they possess or exercise under those defendants.

(3.) The plaintiffs base their title on two grounds : First, that the permanent lease under which they claim was created under circumstances that would ?rind not only the grantor but all his successors; and secondly, that even it the lease was not valid they had acquired a title under the Indian Limitation Act.