SANKARALINGA MUDALIAR Vs. KUTHALINGA MUDALIAR (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We agree with the lower Court that the suit is barred by limitation, although in our opinion the appropriate Article is Article 142, and not Article 131 of the Limitation Act. The suit is in effect for possession of the temple and the value of the temple itself is specifically included in the plaint valuation of the suit. The judgment in Eshan Chunder Roy v. Monmohini Dassi 4 C. 683 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 434, which is relied on by appellants Vakil, proceeds on the basis that no interest in immoveable property was involved and Ramanathan Chetty v. Murugappa Chetty 27 M. 192 : 13 M.L.J. 341, Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram 23 M. 271 (P.C.) : 2 Bom. L.R. 597 : 4 C.W.N. 329 : 27 I.A. 69 : 10 M.L.J. 29 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 671 : 8 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 591 and Charapattada Siddalinga Swamulu v. Sondur Ramachandra Charlu 35 Ind. Cas. 646 : 31 M.L.J. 857 : 4 L.W. 186 all support the view that Article 142 is the proper article to apply in the present case.

(2.) But this makes the case of plaintiffs worse, for under Article 142 the burden of proof must rest on plaintiffs, and on the meagre evidence on record we have no hesitation whatever in holding that they have not discharged it.

(3.) The appeal is dismissed with costs as also the memorandum of objection.