JUDGMENT.— The main question in this Second Appeal filed by the plaintiff is whether the plaintiff’s title had been extinguished by the law of limitation. The plaintiff is the Sri Rajanarayanaperumal Temple, Melayur represented by its trustee and Executive Officer. The suit is for recovery of possession with future profits of an agricultural land whose extent is 96 cents comprised in R. S. No. 169/6, Melayur, Sirkali taluk. It is not in dispure that the suit property belonged to the temple, the same having been granted as an iruwaram inam.

2. One Manikkam Pillai was formerly the trustee of the temple. In the year 1941, he purported to exchange the suit property with another property of one Muthiah Pillai. The other property is said to be comprised in two survey numbers whose total extent is 92 cents. The exchange was under the original of Exhibit A-4, dated 2nd December. 1941. Within two days thereafter, that is under the original of Exhibit A-5 dated 4th December, 1941, the suit property was purchased in the name of the first defendant to the suit, who is no other than the wife of the said Manikkam Pillai (the then trustee). In effect, the trustee (Manikkam Pillai) got the suit property which is admittedly that of the temple transferred to his wife’s name in a circuitous way, that is by transferring it to Muthiah Pillai in exchange for another property and getting a sale deed from Muthiah Pillai in the name of the wife (first defendant). It is common ground that Manikkam Pillai died in the year 1942; and the members of his family continued to be trustees of the temple till 1957. Only in that year, the present trustees were appointed. Later an Executive Officer was also appointed for the temple.

3. The case of the plaintiff has been that the alienation by the then trustee Manikkam Pillai is void and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession with mesne profits. Bakkiathachi, the widow of Manikkam Pillai was the sole defendant originally impleaded in the suit. She died pending suit and Rethinam Pillai, the adopted son of Manikkam Pillai has been impleaded as the second defendant. He contested the suit mainly on the ground of limitation. He also contended that by virtue of the Madras Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, XXX of 1963, the plaintiff’s right, if any, should be held to be barred. The Courts below have concurrently found that the suit is barred by limitation and that the defendants must be held to have acquired title by adverse possession. The trial Court has also held that the provisions of Act XXX of 1963 are a bar for the maintainability of the suit and further the plaintiff cannot sue for possession without seeking to set aside or cancel the exchange deed, the original of Exhibit A-4,

4. In this Second Appeal by the plaintiff it is not seriously disputed by the respondent that the alienation under the original of Exhibit A-4 made by Manikkam Pillai is void. When the alienation was made, the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, II of 1927 was applicable. Under section 44-B of the said Act (which corresponds to section 41 of Act XXII of 1959), any exchange, gift, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of the whole or any portion of any inam granted for the support or maintenance of a temple etc., shall be null and void. Therefore the alienation under the exchange deed is clearly void and there is no need, for the plaintiff to ask for cancellation or setting aside the said document before seeking to recover possession of the property. This position is not disputed by Mr. V. Ratnam, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. As) I said the question is whether the suit is barred by limitation. Two contentions were raised on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant in this regard. The first is that by virtue of Article 96 of the Limitation Act of 1963, the suit is within time. The second is based on section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (XXII of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document