A trustee of a religious institution cannot convey a valid title to the transferee, and therefore, Article 134 of the Limitation Act does not apply to suits for the recovery of temple property improperly alienated by the trustee.

Devadoss, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment of Madhavan Nair, J., giving a decree to the plaintiff. The 3rd defendant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. The question for determination is whether the suit is barred by Article 134 of the Limitation Act. The plaintiff is the trustee of a temple. The finding is that the property is the property of the temple. The contention of Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar is that the suit is barred under Article 134 inasmuch as the suit was brought more than 12 years after the date of the alienation. Article 134 gives a period of 12 years for the recovery of possession of immoveable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the trustee or mortgagee for valuable consideration. The argument advanced is that the suit is barred by Article 134 if the transferor is held to be a trustee and if he is not a trustee, then the suit is barred by reason of Article 144 of the Limitation Act. The finding that the transferor is a trustee cannot be challenged now. The simple question is therefore whether Article 134 applies to the case. It was decided in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Aiyar (1921) ILR 44 M 831 : 41 MLJ 340 (PC) that a permanent lease of Mutt property granted by the head of the Mutt could not create any interest in the property to enure beyond the life of the grantor and consequently Article 134 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act of 1908 did not apply to a suit brought by the successor of the grantor for the recovery of the property. Mr. Ramachandra Aiyar tries to get over this decision by contending that the transferee was only a lessee and that he did not deny the title of the Mutt but only contended that he was entitled to be in perpetual possession of the property being a permanent lessee. Mr. Ameer Ali in delivering the judgment of their Lordships observed:

It is also to be remembered that a trust in the sense in which the expression is used in the English Law is unknown in the Hindu system, pure and simple.

2. With reference to the head of a Mutt or She bait he observed:

In no case was the property conveyed to or vested in him, nor is he a trustee in the English sense of the term, although in view of the obligations and duties resting on him he is answerable as a trustee, in the general sense, for maladministration.

3. In the case of a religious institution the property is vested in the idol and the trustee is only a manager for the time being. In the case of a Mutt the head of the Mutt for the time being is entitled to use the income of the Mutt property subject to the maintenance of the Thambirans and the ascetics attached to the Mutt. In the case of a trustee of a temple he is not entitled to use any portion of the income for himself. In the case of a wakf if the deed of trust makes provision for the maintenance of the Muthavali or the trustee for the time being, he may use the income for himself as allowed by the deed of trust, but in the case of Hindu religious institutions no trustee of any institution is entitled to use any portion of the income for himself if the property is vested in the idol. The decision in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Aiyar (1921) ILR 44 M 831 : 41 MLJ 340 (PC) cannot be said to apply only to cases of leases. The remarks of their Lordships apply to cases of all alienations of property. A permanent lease is as much an alienation as a sale. The mere fact that rent is payable by the permanent lessee does not make a permanent lease any the less an alienation than a sale. Has the trustee of a religious institution the right to alienate the kudivaram interest in the temple property? Can it be said if he lets into possession tenants so as to enable them to acquire occupancy rights, that he does not alienate the kudivaram interest? The mere fact that the tenants pay the mel-varam to the temple cannot convert the transfer of the kudivaram into anything less than an alienation of it. A trustee, therefore, cannot convey a va