SUBBAYA PANDARAM Vs. MUHAMMAD MUSTAPPA MARACAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The real question in this appeal is whether the suit is barred by the operation of the statute of limitation.

(2.) It was instituted by the appellant to recover, as against a purchaser under an execution sale and those who claimed under him, certain property which had by two deeds dated February 21, 1890, and the December 13, 1894, been devoted to charitable purposes. The 6rst of these two documents declared that the heirs of the settlor in the order of primogeniture should be trustees and conduct the said charities. The settlor died in 1895, leaving him surviving his widow and Arunachellam, his only son. Arunachellam is the father of the present appellant. He was trustee of the charity and having become involved in debt one of his creditors sued him and obtained a decree in execution of which the endowments of the charity were attached. The settlor's widow, on behalf of the appellant who was then an infant, filed an objection to the attachment, but it was dismissed on the ground that during the lifetime of the appellant's father he had no locus standi. In the same year another suit was instituted by the minor acting through the same next friend seeking to establish the validity of both the deeds, and while this suit was pending, the property was brought to sale under the decree against Arunachellam on March 22, 1898. It was purchased by Maracayar who is since deceased, and whose legal personal representatives are the respondents Nos. 4 to 8 of this appeal; the sale was confirmed on August 11, 1898, and delivery of possession was made to the purchaser, the settlor's widow being removed from possession. From that day until the institution of these proceedings, the purchaser and those claiming under him have been in uninterrupted possession of the property.

(3.) On December 31, 1900, it was declared in the second suit of 1897 that the properties, including those seized under the execution sale, formed a trust estate for the purpose specified in the deed. On November 9, 1911, the appellant who had come of age on August 6, 1910, petitioned the District Court asking for leave to bring a suit to remove Arunachellam from the office of trustee, and such leave was granted; the suit for removal was accordingly instituted and on July 21, 1913, a decree was obtained removing Arunachellam, and the appellant succeeded as trustee. The present suit was then brought on July 23, 1913, to recover the property. Both the learned Judge, before whom the matter first came, and the learned Judges of the High Court have decided against the appellant but on different grounds; the result of the decisions was, however, in their Lordships opinion correct.