PANDURANGI BHIMACHARYA Vs. DIVADHINA CHARYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is the head of the Uttaradhi Mutt. The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of possession of the inam village of Tirumalapuram. This village was granted originally by the Nawab of Mysore in 1784 to Sri Sathya Bodha Swami Garu, the then head of the mutt, for purposes of worshipping Srirama Devaru. The village was in the possession and management of Sathya Bodha Swami and his successors till 1797. In that year Sathya Dharma Swami, a successor of Sathya Bodha Swami, gifted it to Kothandapani Rangacharlu (an ancestor of the defendant) and his successors "from son to grandson and so on in succession for the diligent study of the Vedas" (See Ex. G). From that time onwards, that is for about 130 years, the inam has been in the occupation of the defendant and his predecessors.

(2.) The grant by the swami was recognised by the Muhammadan sovereigns first and afterwards by the British Government. At the time of the Inam Inquiry in 1861 it was recognised as a personal inam and confirmed as rent-free and hereditary in the name of the paternal grandfather of the defendant. These facts are not disputed.

(3.) The plaintiff became the head of the mutt in 1912. His case is that the suit village forms an endowment of the mutt, that its alienation by Sathya Dharma Swami is invalid and that he is therefore entitled to recover possession of the same from the defendant as the property of the mutt. The defendant denies that the village is trust property or an endowment of the mutt, his case being that it was the absolute property of the Swami who alienated it and that the gift by that Swami is valid. He further contended that the suit is barred by limitation. His other contention need not be referred to for purposes of this appeal.