SRI MAHANT PARAMANANDA DAS GOSWAMI Vs. RADHAKRISHNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff filed the suit which gives rise to this appeal, for a declaration that he was the lawful Mahant of the Ganga Mata Mutt and for recovery of properties belonging to it. The Mutt is situated at Puri but it owns properties of considerable value in the District of Ganjam. The District Judge who tried the suit dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation. No question of fact was tried in the case and the learned Judge held that on the allegations in the plaint the claim was barred. We are not therefore concerned with the truth or falsity of the statements in the plaint but the only question is whether on these averments made in it the suit is in time or is barred. If the plaint can be construed as one for possession of a hereditary office the article applicable is Art. 124 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of 12 years and the suit would not be barred. If, on the other hand, the claim cannot be regarded as one to a hereditary office, Art. 120 which prescribes a period of six years applies and the suit would then be barred. The point to be decided is, on the allegations in the plaint, is this a suit for possession of a hereditary office.

(2.) In paragraph 6 of the plaint the plaintiff refers to the fact that the late Mahant Sri Madhava Das nominated him as his successor and wrote in his own hand the Guru Pranali and the Sidha Pranali containing the plaintiff's name and handed the Pranalis to the plaintiff in token of his appointment as his successor. He further says that the appointment is irrevocable and was not revoked by the late Mahant.

(3.) In paragraphs 8 and 9, the plaintiff alleges that the 1 defendant puts himself forward as the successor to the late Mahant on the strength of a will executed by the latter, the genuineness of which the plaintiff does not admit. He adds that he denies that the 1st defendant was nominated by the previous Mahant as his successor.