Judgement

Appeal (No. 92 of 1932) from a decree of the High Court (April 8, 1930) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Patna (September 6, 1927).

On December 21, 1909, Rampat Das, the mahant of a math, executed a mukarrari lease to respondent No. 1 of certain property appertaining to the math, and put him into possession ; on February 13, 1911, Rampat Das executed a sale deed of the same property, subject to the lease, to respondent No. 3, the wife of respondent No. 2. In or about July, 1913, Rampat Das died. After a dispute as to the office the appellant became mahant.

On May 27, 1924, the appellant, as mahant, instituted the present suit against the three respondents claiming possession of the property and mesne profits.

Both the mukarrari lease and the sale deed purported to have been executed in order to meet the expenses of the math, but that was negatived by concurrent findings of the Courts in India.

Upon the present appeal the sole question was whether the suit was barred by limitation as pleaded by the defendants. Both Courts held, and it was not disputed upon the present appeal, that the article of the Limitation Act applicable was art. 144 and not art. 134.

The