LAWS(PVC)-1914-1-12

SOWCAR SAHANADA GOVINDA DOSS, Vs. RAJAH VENKATA PERUMAL RAJAH, MINOR BY HIS NEXT FRIEND MRWAVARADACHARIAR

Decided On January 23, 1914
SOWCAR SAHANADA GOVINDA DOSS, Appellant
V/S
RAJAH VENKATA PERUMAL RAJAH, MINOR BY HIS NEXT FRIEND MRWAVARADACHARIAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was instituted in 1903 by the Rajah of Karvetnagar through a next friend, an officer of the Court of Wards to recover possession, on behalf of the temple of Sri Venugopalasami in Karvetnagar, of the village of Konasa-mudram which according to the plaint, was given to the temple on the 29th of August 1808 by a sanad of that date. The present Rajah has after the institution of the suit taken over the Zamindari from the Court of Wards and continues the suit himself. In 1881 a lease of the village for a term of 10 years terminating on the last day of June 1891, was given by the then Rajah to two persons whom we may call the lessees, at a rental of Rs. 4000 a year which was to be credited in payment of sums due to them on mortgages executed by the Rajah. The Rajah is admittedly hereditary Dharmakartha of the temple of Sri Venugopalasami, but the money borrowed on the mortgages was not for the purposes of the temple but for his own private use.

(2.) In 1885 Konasamu dram and another village were mortgaged by a simple mortgage to the father of the defendants-I may call him the purchaser-and in 1887 he sued on the mortgage and obtained an ex parte decree on the 1st of April of that year.

(3.) The property was attached in execution of the decree, and was brought to sale in August 1889 and purchased by the mortgagee; the judgment-debtor attempted to get the sale set aside alleging inter alia that the property sold, the Konasamudram village, was " Tanakha " of the Sri Venugopalasami Temple and some other temples. The District Judge in March 1890 dismissed the application, and the High Court dismissed the appeal from his order, observing as regards the allegation that the property was temple property, that that point ought to have been raised in the suit. The judgment of the High Court was on the 16th April 1891, but the sale was confirmed in April 1890 after the District Judge s order, and possession was delivered by proclamation on the 7th of May 1890 to the purchaser who as I have said was the mortgagee himself.