KUTHIRAVATTATH KOTTAYIL KOTHARAYAN ALIAS NALLAPATA NAYAR Vs. MUTHU ALIAS MUHAMMAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who is the present second stani of Kuthiravattath Swarupam, brought the suit, out of which the second appeal arises, for recovery of possession with mesne profits of the suit properties from defendant 1. It is necessary to set out in brief outline the previous transactions regarding this property. By Ex. P-2 dated 7th June 1905, one Kunhunni Thamban, who was then the second stanom-holder of Kuthiravattath Swarupam, executed a karipanayam deed in favour of one Alu alias Karumankutti for a sum of Rs. 1500. On 31st July 1920 under Ex. P-1, the same Kunhunni Thambam granted a registered kanom over the same properties to defendant 1 and defendant 1 is now admitted to be in possession of the properties after having redeemed the previous mortgage under Ex. P.2. This Kunhunni Thamban became the first stani in 1927 as a result of which, the person who succeeded to the second stanom was one Appu Thamban. This gentleman lived till 1942 when the present plaintiff succeeded him as the second stani.

(2.) The basis of the present suit is that Ex. P-1 would not be binding on the stanom of the properties because they were granted by a stani who is only a limited estate-holder and therefore would not enure beyond his lifetime. Even in cases where a succeeding stani accepted the rent from the previous mortgagee or lessee and recognised the position of the alienee still a person who succeeds such successor will not be bound by such transactions. The lower Courts have found that the kanom deed Ex. P.2 is not valid and binding so far as this stanom is concerned, But, relying upon the observations of the learned Judges in Rajah of Palghat v. Raman Unni, 41 Mad. 4 : (A. I. R. (5) 1918 Mad. 675), the learned Subordinate Judge has found that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge has quoted in extenso passages from the judgment of the learned Chief Justice, Sir John Wallis in Rajah of Palghat v. Raman Unni, 41 Mad. 4 : (A. I. R. (5) 1918 Mad. 675) as well as from the judgment of his collegue Seshagiri Aiyar J., in the same decision. It may be mentioned here that Seshagiri Aiyar J., was himself a party to an earlier decision in Patinharkuru Vellabhan Chattan Rajah v. Raman Varma, 28 M. L. J. 669 : (A. I. R. (2) 1915 Mad. 217), where observations tending to a somewhat contrary view point regarding the powers and status of stani were enunciated by him. The learned Judge in Rajah of Palghat v. Raman Unni, 41 Mad. 4 : (A. I. R. (5) 1918 Mad. 675), explains away his earlier dicta and agrees with the learned Chief Justice that as regards limitation and adverse possession, a succeeding stani is in the position of a person who inherits an estate so that if the period of limitation has begun to run during the lifetime of a person who holds the property his successor in interest will also have such period running against him.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant relies upon passages in the judgment of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in Vidyavaruthi v. Balusami Aiyyar, 44 Mad. 881 at pp. 854 and 855 : (A. I. R. (9) 1922 P. C. 123). Mr. Ameer All, in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee states that in the case of Mahants a succeeding Mahant is not bound by alienations created by a previous Mahant and that the period of limitation is governed by Article 144, Limitation Act. It is stated that one Mahant does not succeed another and any alienation by a particular Mahant cannot enure beyond his lifetime. The learned Judges in Rajah of Palghat v. Raman Unni, 41 Mad. 4 : (A. I. R. (6) 1918 Mad. 675), followed the Privy Council decision in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram, 23 Mad. 271 : (27 I. A. 69 P. C.) and at P. 10 of the Report, Wallis C. J. makes the following observation :