- (1.)This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated October 19, 1949 affirming, in appeal, those of the Civil Judge, Hubli passed in Special Suit No. 21 of 1924.
(2.)The facts of the case lie within a short compass and the whole controversy, so far as this appeal is concerned, centres round the short point as to whether or not the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Bath the Courts below have decided this point against the plaintiff and he has come up on appeal before us.
(3.)To appreciate the contentions that have been canvassed before us, a brief resume of the material facts will be necessary. The plaintiff-appellant is the spiritual head or Mathadhipati of a 'Linlayet Math' known as 'Murusavisrath' situated within Hubli Taluka in the district of Dharwar. On November 13, 1887 Gurusidhwaswami, who was the then head of the religious institution, granted a permanent lease of a tract of land belonging to the Math and forming part of R. S. No. 34, in favour of one Pradhanappa and the rent agreed to be paid by the lessee was Rs. 50/- per annum for the first six years and thereafter at the rate of Rs. 25/- annually.
On June 19, 1892 Pradhanappa sold a portion of the leasehold property, which is described in Schedule 1 (b) to the plaint, to a person named Bharamappa. In 1897 Gurusidhwaswami died and was succeeded by his disciple Gangadhar Swami who did not repudiate the permanent lease granted by his predecessor and went on accepting rents from the lessee in the same way as before. In April 1905 another part of the land, which is described in Schedule 1 (a) to the plaint, was put up for sale in execution of a decree against Pradhanappa's heirs and it was purchased by one Kadayya, and Kadayya in his turn sold the same to Bharamappa who had already purchased Schadule 1 (b) plot by private purchase.

On April 8, 1910 Bharamappa made a gift of the entire premises consisting of plots 1 (a) and 1 (b) to the Dareshina Maharashtra Digambar Jain Sabha, a registered body, for the purpose of building a school upon it for the education of Jain students. On August 31, 1920 Gangadhar Swami died and for some time after his death the affairs of the Math were in the hands of a committee of management. On November 25, 1925 the present plaintiff Gurusidhwaswami became the head of the Math. On August 27, 1932 the plaintiff an situated a suit, being Suit No. 80 of 1932, against the heirs and successors of Bharamappa for recovery of possession of the land comprised in the permanent lease on the allegation that there being no legal necessity for granting the lease, the alienation was not binding on the Math and became void on the death of the last Mahant.

The Jain Sabha was impleaded as defendant 23 in the suit, but under a wrong name. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge but on appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court of Bombay, the trial Court's judgment was reversed and the plaintiff's claim for khas possession was allowed in respect of the suit land against all the defendants with the exception of defendant 23 who was dismissed from the suit on the ground of misdescription. The judgment of the High Court is dated the 26th of November 1942.

On 3rd December 1943 the plaintiff appellant commenced the present suit against the respondent Jain Sabha claiming khas possession of the land gifted in its favour by Bharamappa, alleging that as the original permanent lease was not binding on the Math for not being supported by legal necessity, the defendant could not acquire any title by grant from the successor of the lessee. The defendant sabha resisted the suit and the two material questions round which the controversy centered were: (1) whether the original permanent lease was supported by legal necessity and even if it was not, (2) whether the plaintiff's suit was barred by limitation under Art. 134-B, Limitation Act

The trial Judge decided the first point in favour of the plaintiff, but on the question of limitation the decision was adverse to him. The result was that the plaintiff's suit was dismissed. Thereupon the plaintiff took an appeal to the High Court of Bombay and the learned Judges, who heard the appeal, concurred in the decision of the Court below and dismissed the appeal and the suit. It is the propriety of this decision that has been challenged before us in this appeal.