VINAYAK SHIVRAO ARAS Vs. ATMARAM RAYAJI NETRAVALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this case sued as the Manager of the temple of Shri Narayan Dev of Ankola to recover certain amounts due on three mortgage bonds mentioned in the plaint. The claim was to enforce the mortgage bonds by sale of the mortgaged property. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 at the date of the suit were purchasers of the equity of redemption in some of these lands, and defendant No. 4 was the Court purchaser of the interest of the original mortgagor in some lands, which need not be detailed. Defendant No. 3 was joined, as he was said to be the Muktesar of this temple appointed by the Temple Committee. The plaintiff stated in the plaint that the members of his family had been managers of the said temple from times immemorial, and that the money was advanced in that capacity to the original mortgagor by his grand-father, Shrinivas Sajroba. The defendant No. 3, the Muktesar, did not appear. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 4 raised several contentions. They contended that the plaintiff had not the right to maintain the suit. They also contended that the claim on the mortgage-bond was time- barred, and that the suit lands were not the lands originally mortgaged by the owner.

(2.) The trial Court found that the three mortgages in suit, one of 1869 and two of 1870, were proved. It also held that the plaintiff's claim was in time; that the lands in suit were the lands mortgaged; and that defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were agriculturists. As there was some doubt in the course of the suit as to whether the plaintiff claimed money for his own benefit or for the benefit of the temple, a Purshis was taken from him whereby he made his position clear. In the result the Court passed a decree against defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and in favour of the plaintiff as Vahivatdar of the temple of Shri Narayan Dev of Ankola, for payment of Rs. 433-5-0, and interest on Rs. 318 at ten per cent. from the date of suit by yearly instalments of Rs. 75 payable every year in December beginning from 1920.

(3.) Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 did not appeal from this decree, but defendant No. 4 appealed to the District Court. The learned District Judge, without going into the question relating to the merits of the claim, has dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the plaintiff claimed the money for his own benefit, and that the present claim was in effect adverse to the temple. The learned Judge was of opinion that the plaintiff could not maintain the suit as he was not A trustee, and as he was suing avowedly on his own account.