Judgement

Appeal from a judgment and decree of the High Court (August 10, 1914), varying a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Madura (October 9, 1908).

The suit was brought by the respondent against the appellants for a declaration " that the defendants

Law Rep. 46 Ind. App. 204 ( 1918- 1919) Arunachellam C hetty V. Venkatachalapathi Guruswamigal

62

have no right to the village of Patharakudi and that the plaintiff as head of the math was entitled to possession . . . . ,and to receive the income of the same in the hands of the Receiver." The plaint alleged that the respondent was head of the ancient math of Patharakudi, which in the 16th century had been endowed by one of the Pandiyan kings with Patharakudi and other villages, the title of the math to the endowments having been confirmed by an inam title deed in 1864. That the plaintiff had been duly appointed head in 1867, and that being at the time young, he had allowed certain Nattukatai Chettys, disciples of the math, to manage its affairs under his control and supervision ; that for some years the Chettys had efficiently managed the affairs, but that from about 1901 they had improperly claimed to be trustees and that disputes and disorders had resulted. That in 1903 the Head Assistant Magistrate had ordered that the math should remain in the possession of the respondent, and that the village of Patharakudi should be attached, a Receiver being appointed later. That the Chettys had acted merely as the respondents agents, and that the respondent had throughout been in possession of the village of Patharakudi. The appellants by their written statement pleaded that the matam had been created by Chettys for their own private accommodation, and that it possessed none of the characteristics of a math; they alleged that from time immemorial the Chettys had been exclusively managing the villages and applying the income to the purposes of the institution ; that as a matter of convenience, eight families of Chettys were entrusted with the management, the senior members in rotation by immemorial custom administering the affairs ; that on the death of the gurukkal in 1863, the then representatives of the eight families had according to the usage appointed the plaintiff as their priest. The following issues among others were framed (1.) What is the nature of the institution described as the math and adhinam at Patharakudi ? . . . . (4.) Whether the alleged previous matathipathies, or the plaintiff, were the trustees of the institution at Patharakudi, and whether the plaintiff was, since his appointment, in possession of the plaint-mentioned villages within twelve years prior to suit or to the date of the Magistrates order of attachment ? (5.) Whether the trusteeship has been held by the eight families, represented by the defendants and one Kulandaivelan Chetty hereditarily as alleged by the defendants 1 (7.) Whether the Chettys had acquired the right of trusteeship by adverse possession for more than twelve years ? (9.) Whether the suit was barred by limitation ?

The facts appear from the judgment of their Lordships. The Subordinate Judge on October 19, 1908, delivered his judgment, in which he dealt exhaustively with the evidence, Dealing with issues 1 to 6, of which issue 4 was the important issue, he considered first the evidence, almost wholly documentary, as to the period ending with the death of the plaintiffs predecessor in 1863. He found that that evidence showed that the institution existed before the sixteenth century, and that the endowment of the village was then granted by a Pandiyan king to its gurukkal ; that the gurukkals always held and enjoyed the endowments of the institution, and were recognized as their owner, proprietor, and the ma tat hip at by or head of the institution ; and that the Chettys had nothing to do with the endowments except as disciples of their guru. There was some evidence to show that the Chettys assisted in the management, but insufficient to est