PALANIYANDI MALAVARAYAN Vs. VADAMALAI OODAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit in ejectment by the plaintiff, who claims to be the trustee of the Sri Thirujateswaraswami temple in the Tanjore District, against the defendants who, according to the plaintiff, are holding the lands in question as tenants under the temple. The defendants contended that the lands did not belong to the temple but to the villagers, that the plaintiff was not the trustee and that the villagers themselves were the trustees and that the plaintiff s suit was barred by limitation. The District Munsif found that the plaintiff was the trustee, that the lands belonged to the temple, that the defendants had occupancy right in them but that they had forfeited their holding by repudiation of the title of the temple prior to the suit. He accordingly passed a decree in plaintiff s favour. On appeal, the District Judge reversed the decree on the ground that the plaintiff had lost the right of trusteeship and the defendants had acquired it by limitation. The facts found are that the temple is one subject to the jurisdiction of the temple Committee in whom the right to appoint the trustee is vested under the provisions of Act XX of 1863; that trustees were appointed by the Committee in 1868; that the survivor of them died in 1883, and that for a period of 24 years, until 1907, no one was appointed as trustee by the Committee who appointed the plaintiff in 1907. The defendants contention that they themselves were in management of the temple since 1883 has been negatived. The District Judge finds that they took possession of the office only in 1902, i.e., seven years before the suit. But he holds that this is sufficient to bar the plaintiff s right. He has not recorded any findings on the other questions raised in the case.

(2.) The only question argued in second appeal is whether the finding on the question of limitation is right. The District Judge has applied Article 120 to the case as no period of limitation is provided in any other Article of the Schedule to the Limitation Act.

(3.) Article 124 lays down the rule of limitation applicable to a suit "for possession of a hereditary office." This would, of course, include the office of a hereditary trustee of a temple. The period provided is 12 years and the starting point is when the defendant takes possession of the office adversely to the plaintiffs. An explanation is added which states: "A hereditary office is possessed when profits thereof are usually received, or (if there are no profits) when the duties thereof are usually performed." The defendants contention is that at the expiration of six years, they acquired the right to the office, though tot a hereditary right.