Judgement

Appeal (No. 8 of 1933) from a decree of the High Court (April 20, 1931) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur (March 31, 1927).

In 1926 the respondent, Karia Bharti, brought a suit against the appellants claiming possession of the village Sitkna. By his plaint he alleged that the village appertained to a math at Kanchanpur ; that he had been installed as mahant of the math upon the death in 1916 of Rajbans Bharti; and that Rajbans had sold the village to the appellants in 1914 without necessity. The appellants by their written statement denied that the respondent had been installed as mahant, and the other facts alleged ; they pleaded (inter alia) that the suit was barred by limitation. Rajbans had been installed as mahant in 1894 and had died in 1916. In 1904 a deed of compromise had been entered into by Karia and Rajbans with reference to the math properties ; the effect of the deed was one of the matters in dispute upon the appeal.

The facts appear fully from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

Both Courts in India found that the village appertained to the math and had been sold without necessity.

The Subordinate Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff could not maintain it, as it was proved that he had not been installed as mahant as he alleged in his plaint.

An appeal to the High Court was allowed and a decree made for possession and mesne profits. The learned judges (Pullan and Niamat-ullah JJ.) held that although the plaintiff had not been installed he had been de facto mahant since the compromise of 1904, and that as such he could maintain the suit, and that the suit was not barred by limitation, as it was commenced within twelve years of Rajbans death.

1934. Nov. 16, 19. De Gruyther K.C. and Parikh for the appellants.

Wallach for the respondent.

The contentions appear from the judgment. Reference was made to Damodar Das v. Adhikari Lakhan Das (( 1910) L. R. 37 I. A. 147.) ; Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain (( 1911) L. R. 38 I. A. 87.); Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusami Ayyar (( 1921) L. R. 48 I. A. 302.); Ram Charan Ramanuj Das v. Gobinda Ramanuj Das (( 1928) L. R. 56 I. A. 104.); Ram Charan Das v. Naurangi Lal (( 1933) L. R. 60 I. A. 124.); and Naurangi Lal v. Ram Charan Das. (( 1930) I. L. R. 9

P. 885, 895.)

Dec. 18. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

SIR SHADI LAL. This appeal relates to a village known as Saktni, which is situated in the District of Gorakhpur in the Province of Agra. The village formed part of the estate annexed to the math of Kanchanpur in that District and was sold to the defendants, hereinafter called “the appellants," on March I, 1914, by one Rajbans Bharthi alleged to be the mahant of the math at that time. Rajbans died on March 21, 1916, and the present action was brought on February 23, 1926, by Karia Bharthi, who claimed to be his successor as the mahant of the shrine.

A large number of pleas were raised to defeat the suit, but there are only two questions which have been argued on this appeal first, that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit ; second, that the claim was barred by limitation.

The facts of the case bearing on these questions do not admit of any real dispute. In April, 1894, one Bachchu Bharthi, who was admittedly the mahant of the math, died, and two persons, namely Rajbans Bharthi and Karia Bharthi, came forward to claim the office of the mahant. Karia was, at that time, a boy of only about thirteen years of age ; and his father, acting as his guardian, settled the dispute with the rival claimant by a compromise. In accordance with this compromise Rajbans executed on May 2, 1894, a deed by which he promised to adopt the boy as his chela and declared him to be his successor to the office of mahant. As a result of this settlement, Rajbans was recognized and installed as the mahant of the math.

On attaining majority Karia repudiated the compromise and instituted in 1899 a suit to establish his c