Judgement

Appeal (No. 13 of 1935) from a decree of the High Court in its appellate jurisdiction (May 13, 1932) which varied a decree of the Court in its original jurisdiction (December 19, 1930).

The material facts are stated in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

1937. Feb. 4, 5, 8, 9. Rashid for the appellant. On the true construction of the deeds of 1888 and 1896 the properties comprised in them vest absolutely in the Deity. As regards adverse possession by Satya, referring to s. 10, art. 144, of the Limitation Act, Brojo and Pulin were always in possession as shebaits. Satya merely resided with Pulin. Pulin was a shebait and limitation cannot run against a shebait. [Reference was made to Mullas Hindu Law, 8th ed., pp. 492-495.] A shebait cannot give title. Adverse possession would run from the death of the shebait Mahant Ram Charan Das v. Naurangi Lal and Others. (( 1933) L. R. 60 I. A. 124.) There is no distinction between a mahant and a shebait. Where there are two co-owners one cannot be in adverse possession to the other Bhairabendra Narain Roy v. Rajendra Narain Roy. (( 1933) L. R. 60 I. A. 124.) Pulin was in possession as shebait. The idol was in possession through hi