A suit for recovery of possession under the Limitation Act is maintainable only when transactions are legally sanctioned; unlawful acts by trustees do not confer legal rights.

JUDGMENT :

Easwaran S., J.

1. These appeals raise intricate questions regarding the applicability of Articles 92 and 96 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The facts presented before this Court requires this Court to address multifaceted questions regarding the entitlement of the respondent/plaintiff– Pandi Samooham to maintain a suit for recovery of possession against the appellants.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as follows:

2.1. Six suits were presented before the Munsiff Court, Kodungallur, by the Pandi Samooham, which is a religious institution registered under the provisions of Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff – Pandi Samooham was formed for the benefit of Tamil Brahmans, who were residing in Kodungallur and also for conducting religious ceremonies for their community. The Cochin Devaswom Board is the Supervisory Authority of the Samooham. The plaint ‘A’ schedule property consisting of 53 cents was purchased for the benefit of the Samooham by Document No.1100 of 1087 M.E. and was in the possession of one Viswalingayyan. Later, one Thaiparambu Madathil Rama Subramania Iyyer was continuing as the Managing Trustee of the Samooham. Later, on the death of Rama Subramania Iyyer, his son, Hariharan, on his own took over the status of the Managing Trustee and continued therein. During his life time, Rama Subramania Iyyer had transferred certain portions of plaint ‘A’ schedule property by executing a sale deed and also created a lease in respect of the properties other than what was sold. It is thus contended that the aforesaid transfers were done in breach of trust and therefore, the same is void-ab-initio and not binding upon the plaintiff – Samooham.

2.2. Subsequent to the transfer, O.S.No.144/1995 was instituted by the said Hariharan, seeking for an injunction against the plaintiff - Samooham. The above suit was tried along with O.S.No.358/1995 and later the suits were dismissed by holding that Hariharan has no right, title and interest over the property. The decision was affirmed by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court. Thus, the property held by the defendants in these cases were scheduled as B schedule and it was further contended that the defendants in these suits had no right, title and interest over the B schedule property and were thus liable to be evicted by an order of recovery of possession. The 1^st defendant in these suits are the assignees from late Rama Subramania Iyyer and they contended that, the property was transferred by Rama Subramania Iyyer as a true owner for a valuable consideration. To plead otherwise is against the law of estoppel. From 1972 onwards, it is contended that the assignees are in possession of the property. In one case, it was contended that the lease was executed in the year 1964 and that the present claim is clearly hit by law of limitation. The Cochin Devaswom Board also filed a separate written statement supporting the plea of the plaintiff - Samooham.

2.3. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A36 documents were marked and PW1 and PW2 were examined and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B16 were marked and DW1 to DW4 were examined. Ext.C1 is the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Ext.C1(a) is the plan. The Trial Court, on the basis of issues framed in the suits, concluded that the plaintiff - Samooham is entitled to succeed and that the continuation of the defendants in the plaint schedule property is without any authority of law. Accordin