LAWS(PVC)-1916-2-123

CHARAPATTADA SIDDHALINGA SWAMULU Vs. SONDUR RAMACHANDRACHARLU

Decided On February 01, 1916
CHARAPATTADA SIDDHALINGA SWAMULU Appellant
V/S
SONDUR RAMACHANDRACHARLU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in this suit which calls for our consideration is that embodied in the 6th issue whether the suit is barred by limitation.

(2.) Article 124 and 144 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act and that it is therefore within time. This view is not supported in argument before us and we have no hesitation in dissenting from it. The plaint starts with the assertion that the plaintiffs are the members of the Kudligi Taluq Devastanam Committee appointed under Act XX of 1863 : and they pray (1) for a declaration that the suit temple is subject to the control of the committee (2) for an injunction directing defendant to produce for their (plaintiffs ) inspection all the temple properties and accounts.

(3.) It cannot be said that this is a suit "for possession of a hereditary office". The office of a member of a Devastanam Committee under Act XX of 1863 is not hereditary. Nor do Plaintiffs seek to obtain possession of it. On the contrary they allege possession of it: and ask for a declaration of right claimed in respect of it, that is, the right to control (i.e., supervise the management of) the suit temple.