The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, Article 134B, to bar the right of the manager to sue for recovery of possession of the properties comprised in the permanent leases.

JUDGMENT

B.K. Mukherjea, J. - These two appeals are directed against a judgment of the President, Calcutta Improvement Tribunal, dated 3lst August 1938, passed in an apportionment case arising out of a reference made to him by the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. The reference was made in connexion with the acquisition of premises No. 140 Cotton Street, Calcutta, which was acquired in pursuance of a declaration dated 22nd November 1931. Premises no. 140, Cotton Street, as it stands at present has been formed by amalgamation of a number of holdings which were originally numbered premises Nos. 140,140/1 and 141 Cotton Street, 17 Burtola Street (excluding the temple) and 9/1 Narayan Prosad Babu Lane. The last two properties admittedly belonged to three persons who may be described as the Bagarias, at the time of the acquisition, while the Cotton Street properties were owned at all material times by a deity known as Iswar Gopal Jiew which is located at Chinsurah in the district of Hooghly. There were two permanent leases created in respect of these properties by the previous shebaits of the deity; one, which was in respect of premises No. 140 and 140/1, Cotton Street, was ostensibly granted to one Nehal Chand Pandey at a fixed monthly rental of Rs. 25 while the other, which was created in favour of Bhairo Das Jahury, reserved a monthly rental of Rs. 90. It is admitted that Nehal Chand was a mere benamidar of Bhairo Das, and both the leasehold interests are now vested in the Bagarias under a deed of assignment dated 24th January 1933.

2. One Gopal Das Singh Boid was the shebait of the deity Iswar Gopal Jiew from 1873 to 1900. On 19th January 1896, Gopal Das executed a usufructuary mortgage bond in favour of one Lai Behary Dutt of Chinsurah, hypothecating all the immovable properties of the deity, including the premises in Cotton Street mentioned above to secure a loan of Rs. 4955 annas odd, which represented the principal and interest of certain advances made to Gopal Das during his minority. The terms of the mortgage bond were that the mortgagee would realise the rents and profits of the mortgaged properties and out of the same carry on the worship of the deity and meet all other expenses that might be necessary for preservation and management of the debattar estate. The balance that would remain would go towards the satisfaction of the money advanced which would carry interest at the rate of 4 per cent, per annum. In 1900 Gopal Das died childless leaving behind him his widow Annapurna as his sole heir in law. Annapurna, it appears, took out probate of a will left by her husband and she herself died in 1905. It has not been ascertained as yet as to who were the next heirs of Gopal Das when Annapurna died and the question of succession to the shebaitship of the deity still remains undecided. Two persons named Deo Sharan and Ram Lakhan laid claims to shebaitship as the nearest heirs of Gopal Das, and they figured as shebaits of the deity in the land acquisition proceedings and also in the apportionment case before the President of the Tribunal. The learned President, however, came to the definite conclusion that these two men were perfect strangers and were not related in any way to Gopal Das, and this finding has not been challenged before us. One Panchu Gopal Misra also put forward his rights as a shebait in a redemption suit brought by him in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Hooghly. He was held to be a shebait by the trial Judge, but on appeal to the District Judge this claim was negatived. A second appeal, we are told, has been filed since then in this Court but it has not been heard as yet. The deity is represented before us by a pleader who was appointed its next friend by the President of the Tribunal.

3. The position therefore is that ever since 1896 when Gopal Das executed the usufructuary mortgage deed, it is the usufructuary mortgagee or his successors who are carrying on the worship of the deity and are in