MAHANTH RAMLAGAN GOSSAIN Vs. NANDIPAT MAHTON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I propose to state very briefly my reasons for coming to the conclusion that the decision of the learned Judge in the Court below was right. The appeal concerns two out of twelve sale deeds--one executed on April 11, 1917 and the other on September 3, 1917, by Mahanth Bhagwat Bhagat. I do not propose to deal with the question of the plaintiff's tile to sue in this action for the reason which will presently appear, namely that the matter is disposed of on the ground of limitation, which is the only substantial point. The death of Mahanth Bhagwal Bhagat took place on January 7 1920 and tins suit was brought on December 4 1931 and but for other events to which. I must refer, the action would have been clearly within time, the death of the Mahantt having taken place within 12 years of the death of the suit. But other considerations apply. On September 5, 1917, that is to say, two days after the date of the last of the two alienations to which I have referred, Mahanth Bhagwat Bhagat purported to dispose of the balance of the property of the Math. The deed was a deed of samarpannama and purported to deal with 37 bighas and 810 kathas. But the learned Judge is correct in coming to the conclusion that not merely the 37 odd bighas but all the remaining balance of the property was dealt with by that deed, that is to say, the balance remaining after he disposal of the property by the sale deeds the subject-matter of this suit. There are two observations in the recent casein Ram Charan Das V/s. Naurangi Lal 60 I.A. 124 : 142 Ind. Cas. 214 : A.I.R. 1933 P.C. 75 : 12 Pat. 251 : Ind. Rul. (1933) P.C. 56 : 14 P.L.T. 185 : 37 L.W. 512 : 64 M.L.J. 505 : (1933) M.W.N. 272 : 10 O.W.N. 455 : 37 C.W.N. 541 : (1933) A.L.J. 327 : 57 C.L.J. 229 : 35 Bom. L.R. 530 : 17 R.D. 754(P.C.), which in my judgment govern this case, and that is the only authority to which I propose to refer. The opinion of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was stated in the course of the judgment in these words: In other words a Mahanth has power(apart from any question of necessity) to create an interest in property appertaining to the Math which will continue during his own life, or to put it perhaps more accurately, which will continue during his own life, or to put it perhaps more accurately, which will continue during his tenure of office of Mahanth of the Math, with the result that adverse possession of the particular property will only commence when the Mahanth who had disposed of it ceases to be Mahanth by death or otherwise

(2.) The two observations to which I more particularly refer are these: (1) To create an interest in property appertaining to the Math which will continue during his own life or to put it perhaps more accurately which will continue during his tenure of office of Mahanth of the Math.

(3.) and (2) adverse possession will only commence when the Mahant who had disposed of it ceases to be Mahant by death or otherwise.