RAMACHARYA VENKATRAMANACHARYA Vs. SHRINIVASACHARYA VENKATRAMANACHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiffs alleging that the lands in suit were the Inam lands of Shri Venkatesh of Munavalli, constituting an endowment for the worship of that idol, sued to recover possession of them from the defendants on the ground that a gift of the lands made by the plaintiffs predecessors to the defendants predecessors was of no effect in law. The plaintiffs, averring that they were no longer willing to accept the services of the 1st defendant in connection with this temple, claimed to be entitled to recover the lands. The only issue raised in the lower Courts, which is now material, is the issue of limitation, the choice before the Courts lying between Section 10 and Art. 134 of the Indian Limitation Act. The learned trial Judge, applying Art. 134, held that the suit was out of time, and consequently dismissed it. Admittedly it is out of time if Art. 134 is to be applied. In the lower Court of appeal the learned Assistant Judge was of opinion that time was saved by reason of Section 10 of the Indian Limitation Act, He accordingly reversed the trial Court s decree, and made a decree giving possession of the lands to the plaintiffs.

(2.) From that decree the 1st defendant brings the present appeal. The only question which we have to decide is whether the suit is governed by Art. 134 of the Indian Limitation Act or by Section 10, and that question arises for decision in these facts. Originally the plaintiffs predecessors-in-title were constituted trustees of these lands for the purpose of carrying out certain religious services. But at some time, over half a century ago, they transferred the lands to the 1st defendant s predecessors-in-title under a deed which vested possession in the defendant s predecessors on consideration that they continued to perform the essential religious exercises. As I have indicated, the precise date of this transfer is not now ascertainable. We do, however, know that since 186S possession has been with the defendants on the terms stated, and we know that their title-deed of 1868 was not an original grant, but was merely a renewal of some former grant of unknown antiquity.

(3.) Mr. Nilkant for the respondent is no doubt right in his contention that Section 10 and Art. 134 of the Indian Limitation Act must be read together. Beginning with Art. 134, it will be noticed that the present suit falls accurately and precisely within the express terms of this Article, which are "to recover possession of immoveable property conveyed in trust, and afterwards transferred by the trustee for a valuable consideration." Those terms describe with precision the exact character of this suit. So that primarily I should say that the suit falls under this Article.