(1.) These are two appeals from the High Court of Judicature at Patna. They have been consolidated, and the central point upon which each appeal turns is the same: which of the parties is to be treated as the lawful owner of the piece of property in dispute ? That piece of property is a four annas undivided share out of a fourteen annas partitioned share of an estate called Touzi no. 7893 in Mouza Awari, Pargana Lautan. District Darbhanga, and it is hereinafter referred to as "the disputed property."
(2.) The two suits out of which the appeals arise were respectively a partition Suit (No. 89 of 1933) filed by the appellant on 16 September 1932, and a Title suit (No. 72 of 1933) filed by the respondents in the second appeal on 7 November 1933. The appellant, who is the Mahanth of a Math or Asthal called the Birpur Asthal, sought by the partition suit to obtain a declaration of his title to the disputed property and an order for partition of the lands of which that property was an undivided share. He was met by a defence on the part of those respondents who formed the defendants first party to his suit to the effect that on various grounds, some of which will be noticed later, he had no title to the disputed property. These respondents were the Mahanth and the Deities (acting through the Mahanth) of another Math or Asthal known as the Pokrauni Asthal and it was they who instituted the title suit in which they asked for a declaration against the appellant that the disputed property is devottar property of the Pokrauni Asthal and that the appellant had no right to any interest in it. As it is plain that the real question at issue is, to which of these two religious institution does the disputed property belong, it will be convenient to use the term respondents to refer to the respondents Mahanth Ramkirpal Das and the Idols Sri Thakurji, Ramji, Lachhmanji and Jankiji.
(3.) In their Lordships' view, as will appear later, the appellant has a good defence to the title suit under the Limitation Act: (IX