GOKULDOSS JAMNADOSS AND CO Vs. MLAKSHMINARASIMHALU CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two questions raised in this appeal. The main question is whether certain immovable property has been dedicated absolutely for religious purposes or only made subject to a charge. The second question is whether the suit out of which the appeal arises is barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiffs in the suit were the first and second respondents, both of whom were minors at the time of the institution of the suit on the 23 April, 1934. The first respondent attained majority soon after the plaint was filed. The grandfather of the first and second respondents one Munnalur Narasimhalu Chetti, was a resident of Madras and possessed three lots of immovable property within the City, namely, a house known as Nos. 101 and 102 in the Devaraja Mudali Street, seven houses and shops known as Nos. 133 to 139 in the same street, and a garden known as Nos. 27 and 28, Mundakanniamman Temple Street. The suit was filed to recover possession of the property known as Nos. 101 and 102 in Devaraja Mudali Street. It was the respondents case that this property was dedicated by their grandfather in 1890 to the deity Sri Tholasingaperumal Swami of the Sri Parthasarathi Temple, Triplicane, and that he constituted himself the trustee of the property. The grandfather died in the month of December, 1892, leaving a widow and an adopted son Venkataraghavalu Chetti, the father of the first and second respondents. All the properties owned by the grandfather came into the hands of the adopted son, who by a deed of mortgage dated 28 September, 1916, mortgaged the property in suit for Rs. 10,000 to the appellants, treating it as his own property. On the 10 January, 1921, he mortgaged the same property to the appellants to secure a further advance of Rs. 15,000. He was unable to discharge these mortgages and the appellants filed a suit to enforce them. A mortgage decree was passed on the 7 March, 1924. On the 11 October, 1924, with the consent of the Court the mortgaged property was conveyed to the appellants absolutely, the consideration being the satisfaction of the mortgage decree. The appellants were unaware that there had been any dedication of the property for religious purposes, but admittedly nothing turns on this.

(2.) On the 21 October, 1890, the grandfather applied to the Deputy Collector of Madras for the issue of an A form certificate declaring the title to the property to be in the deity. Such a certificate is of the nature of a patta and sets out the name of the owner of the property and the land-tax payable to Government. The application was made because the grandfather had decided to dedicate this property to the deity mentioned. The application has been put in evidence and prays: That an A form certificate may be issued to Tholasingaperumal of Triplicane after the usual enquiry under the rules of the Registration Department.

(3.) The application also embodies the following statement: The certificate of the house herein mentioned is in my name and as I set apart this house as a perpetual gift to Tholasingaperumal of the Parthasarathi temple, Triplicane, I request your honour to issue the certificate in the name of Tholasingaperumal of the Parthasarathi Temple of Triplicane. The property herein mentioned is one of my self-acquired properties and the income (deducting the taxes and the necessary repairs) to be derived from the house herein mentioned is to be used and spent to the daily charities and the second Vidayati Utsavam of the aforesaid Tholasingaperumal of Triplicane. The abovementioned charities are to be conducted by me till my death and afterwards by my heirs, executors, administrators, assigns or legal representatives under the supervision of the aforesaid Tholasingaperumal's Trustees or Dharmakarthas.