The court's decision hinged on the application of limitation acts, the validity of transfers, and the doctrine of part performance in the context of temple property disputes.

Ramesam, J.

1. These appeals arise out of the same original suit, O.S. No. 61 of 23, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judges Court of Masulipatam. The plaintiff sues as the trustee of Sri Veeranjaneyaswamuluvaru temple at Gudivada. Defendant 1 is in possession of item 1, defendant 2 is in possession of item 2 and defendants 3 and 4 are in possession of items 3 and 4, these being the four items which are the subject matter of the suit. The plaintiffs adoptive father Kameswara Pakayya and his father one Brahmaraju, endowed certain lands belonging to them in Gudivada for the purposes of the temple. They built the temple in 1886 and conducted it for three years. In 1889 they executed a gift deed Ex. A, by which they endowed the suit land for the purposes of the temple, making themselves dharmakarthas. The document shows that some portions were intended to be built upon. A thatched house was built upon item 1 in 1893. Afterwards, some time in 1905 it was replaced by a tiled house: vide D.W. 1. The evidence shows that from the beginning there was an intention on the part of Brahmaraju and Kameswara Rao to give item 1 to defendant 1 who is the brothers daughter of Kameswara Rao. A house was built upon item 2 in 1892. The evidence shows that it was intended originally for a sister of Brahmaraju, defendant 2 being her grandson. Item 3 was given to defendants 3 and 4 by means of a rent letter Ex. V (c), which purports to grant a perpetual lease of that item reserving an annual rent of Rs. 2. This was in March 1913. Item 4 is a vacant site placed in the possession of defendants 3 and 4 by a letter Exs. V (b), dated March 1910. It appears that there was a scheme suit in respect of the temple, and after that suit was disposed of the present plaintiff filed this suit to recover the various items from the respective defendants in possession. The lower Court granted a decree against the defendants and each of the defendants has filed a separate appeal. Appeal 33 is by defendant 2, Appeal 34, is by defendant 3, Appeal 35 is by defendant 4 and Appeal 36 is by defendant 1.

2. Each of the items will now be taken up for consideration. In the case of item 1, as I have already stated, a tiled house was built up6n it in 1905. In 1913 Kameswara Rao applied to the chairman of the union to transfer the house to the name of defendant 1. In that document he says:

It had been assigned by my father himself to my sisters son Boddapati Ponniah (husband of the said Ambamma)... The said house and site stand nominally in my name in the accounts and the tax is being paid through me and the entry in the accounts stands in my name but neither I nor my heirs, have any right in respect to it. It belongs to the said Boddapathi Ambamma herself.

3. The chairman ordered the change of name by an endorsement Ex. 1 (b), on 26th January 1914. There was no registered instrument transferring the right to the house to defendant 1 nor is it possible to regard such possession as defendant 1 and her husband had up to 1913 as adverse to Brahmararaju or his son Kameswara Rao. Under Article 134, Lim Act, assuming for the present that the article applies to the case of a temple, there must be a transfer and time runs only from the date of transfer. This means that there must at least be a valid transfer between the transferred and the transferee though it might not be operative as against a trust or any other person. Here we have nothing of the kind. The present suit which was filed in 1923 is within 12 years from Ex. 1 (b). It cannot be said that the transfer was made for any necessity binding upon the trust. The result is this appeal must fail so far as item 1 is concerned.

4. Taking up item 2, we find from the account books Exs. 3 and 3 (a) that some money was spent on the construction of a house by defendant 2s father who was then employed elsewhere and used to remit money to Brahmararaju and Kameswara Rao. The genuineness of these accounts is attacked by the respondent