SARABDEO BHARTHI Vs. RAM BALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff alleging himself to be the duly installed mahant, for possession of certain properties transferred by the former mahant. In the connected appeals we have held that the plaintiff has established his claim as the chela of the last mahant, that it is proved that that mahant abdicated and resigned his mahant ship and that he could validly do so, and that the present plaintiff was duly installed as his successor by election. It follows that the plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit for recovery of possession of property transferred by the last mahant provided there was no legal necessity for the transfer and provided his claim was within time. This appeal relates exclusively to a sale deed dated 18 November 1912 executed by the former mahant, Ram Prasad, for Rupees 3,499-15-0 in favour of Mt. Ureha predecessor of defendants 3 and 4 in respect of village Batelpur. The Court below has held that there is no legal necessity for this sale deed also, but has dismissed the claim on the ground of limitation.

(2.) In appeal it is urged that the view taken by; the Court below on the question of limitation is wrong. Before 1929 there was at one time some authority for the view that a suit brought by a succeeding mahant to recover possession of property transferred by his predecessor was governed by Art. 134, Limitation Act, but in the case of Vidya Varuthl V/s. Balusami Ayyar AIR. 1922 PC 123 their Lordships of the Privy Council distinctly laid down that a mahant cannot be treated as a trustee to whom property had been conveyed in trust within the meaning of that article, and that therefore Art. 134 would not be applicable. Their Lordships applied Art. 144, which is the general article for suits for recovery of possession of immovable property.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellant however relies on the concluding portion of that judgment for the pro- position that adverse possession can never become adverse during the life-time of the trustee who made the transfer. That case however was a special case, in which the plaintiffs were claiming rights as permanent lessees and they had been allowed to remain in possession by the succeeding mahant. Their Lordships came to the conclusion that the proper inference to be drawn from the circumstances of that case was that the new trustee who had power to continue the tenancy had continued it, and consequently the possession of the lessee never become adverse until his death. Where a personal claiming as a permanent lessee and is allowed to remain in possession by a succeeding trustee as lessee, he need not necessarily acquire adverse rights so as to become a permament lessee in perpetuity. The case of an out and out transfer obviously stands on a different footing. In such a case the transferee from the very moment of Ms taking over posses-don asserts adverse title and remains in possession as an adverse proprietor.