RAM CHARAN DAS Vs. NAURANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination on this appeal is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. The relevant facts must first be stated. In December 1909, one Rampat Das was the mahant of a mutt situate at Paliganj in Patna District. On 21 December 1909, he executed a mukarrari or permanent lease of some 70 acres of land to Munshi Naurangi Lal under which the latter paid a premium and an annual rent to the mahant. On 13 February 1911, he executed a sale-deed of the land subject to and with the benefit of the lease to Mt. Sampat Kuer in consideration of Rs. 900. Each document states that it is executed by the mahant for the expenses and necessities of the mutt, but in view of the findings at the trial these statements may be disregarded, and it must be taken that neither of these documents was executed for legal necessity or was for the benefit of the mutt or the deities installed therein.

(2.) Mahant Rampat Das died in or about July 1913. On his death one Sant Das took possession of the mutt claiming to be mahant, but on 20 February 1916, by registered deed he surrendered all his rights to the plaintiff, who was and is the mahant of a mutt at Ramdih Baga. The registered deed included the 70 acres. The plaintiff claimed that Rampat Das had died without leaving behind any disciple, and that in those circumstances he, as mahant of the Ramdih Baga Mutt, was entitled to take possession of the Paliganj mutt (which was subordinate to and a branch of the Ramdih Baga Mutt) and all properties appertaining to it. Their Lordships, however are not now concerned with any question of title because both the Courts below have found that the plaintiff is the person in actual possession of the Paliganj mutt and as such entitled to maintain a suit to recover property not for his own benefit but for the benefit of the mutt. The plaintiff instituted the present suit on 27 May 1924, against the lessee, the purchaser and the husband of the purchaser, claiming possession of the 70 acres as property appertaining to the Paliganj mutt and mesne profits. A number of contentions were raised by the written statements, the two main ones being : (1) that the 70 acres were the personal property of Rampat Das, and (2) that the suit was barred by the Limitation Act. The first contention failed completely. The 70 acres undoubtedly appertained to the mutt. The second contention failed at the trial and it is the sole contention which survived before the Board. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not barred and gave the plaintiff a decree.

(3.) On appeal, the High Court decided that the suit was barred. Both Courts agreed (and rightly) that Art. 134, Limitation Act, did not apply. The only article applicable is Art. 144. The article, which applies to a suit "for possession of immovable property or any interest therein not hereby otherwise specially provided for," prescribes as the period of limitation 12 years from the time "when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff."