SRI SARANGADEVAR PERIA MATAM AND ANOTHER versus RAMASWAMY GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 908 · Decided: 23-09-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. SUBBA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SRI SARANGADEVAR PERIA MATAM AND ANOTHER 
A 
v. 
RAMASWAMY GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LEGAL 
ltEPRESENTA TIVES 
September 23, 1965 
[K. SUHBA RAO, J. R. MVDllOLKAR AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Indian Limitafwn Act (9 of 1908), s. 28 and Art. 144--Absence of 
legally appointed mathadhipathi-Right of mL:.th to recover e1klowed 
property--Slarting point of litni!al..ion. 
The mathadhipathi of the apj)C!lant nu1h granted a perpetual lease of 
the math properties, at a fixed rent to the predecessor of the respondent 
jo 1883, 
but \vithout any legal ncccso;;ity, 
lbe malhaJipalhi died in 
1915. 
From 
1~15 there w:!s only a de facto manager of the moith for 
20 years. 
In 1939, the present mathadhipatlu was elected and in 1950 
the math obtained possession of the properiics. 
Since 1915 the respondent 
and his predecessors did not pay any rent to the math. 
In 1954, the 
respondent filed the suit against the m~th rcpresen1ed by the mathadhipathi, 
for recovery of pos~s'.on of the properties claiming title by adverse posr 
ses:,ion. 
'Ilic trial court decreed the suit. 
On appeal, the decree w<ls set 
a!ide, but was rC";tored by the High Court on further appeal. 
In the appeal to this Court the appellants 
contended 
that 
adverse 
possession could not run till !he machadhip•lthi was appointed. because, 
the right to sue for the recover)· of the math properties vested only io 
the lcgaJJy appointed 
mathadhipathi; 
and before 
posses\ion cou!d be 
:1dvcrse iherc rn~t be a con1pctitor who, hy due vigilance, could avoid 
the running of time.. 
HELD: In the absence of legal neccosity, the lease of 1883 endured 
only during the Jife time of rhe previous mathadhipathi and terminated on 
his <lcath in 1915, and possession thereafter of the respondent and his 
predecessor wa.'\ adverse to the math. 
Therefore, the time under Art. 
144 of 1he Limitation Act. 1908, commenced to run in 1915 and the 
absence of a legally appointed mathadhipathi did not prevent the running 
of time. 
Thus, the title of the. math to the suit properties became extin-
guished in 1927 and the respondent acquired title by prescription, by 
operation of s. 28 and art. 144. [910 E; 913 H; 914 C] 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
A math is the O\vner of endowed property and like an idol is a juris-
tic person having the power of acquiring, owning and possessing propl!rties 
and having the capacity of suing and heing sued. 
It may acquire prc>-
perty by prescription and likewise lose it 
by adverse 
possession. 
A 
legally appointed mathadhipathi .has 1arge heneficial intc.re<>t~ in the m.alh 
properties and he may sue on Its. beh~lf for recovery of its properties. 
G 
In his absence. a de facto mathadh1path1 may do so, and where i:iec~sa.ry. 
a disciple or other beneficiary of the n1ath may take .steps .• for Y1a~1cat1ng 
its lc,!Zal rights. 
Therefore. if before the 
mathad~1path1 s appo1n1ment 
]imitation under art. 144 had commenced to run against the math, the a:>-
pointment does not give citl~cr the. math ?T. th7 malbadhipa.thi a n.ew 
• 
right of suit or a fresh srart1~g po;nt ~1f !Jm11a11on, and so, 1f. the tJtle 
of the math to any propertv 1s e"ttl~gtt1shcd by adverse 'Posscs.~1on,. the 
rights of aU bene.Jiciarieco of the math 1n the property are also cx!1ngu1shed. 
H 
[912 A·D; 912 H-913 BJ 
Jagadindra Nath Ruy v. Hemerrta Kunwi Debi, 
(1904) 1.1..R. 32 
Cal. i29, distin~uished. 
SARANGADEVAR V. R. GOUNDER (Bachawat, I.) 
909 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 544 of 
B 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
July 16, 1959 of Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 513 
of 1957. 
A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, s: S. Javali and Ganapathi Iyer, for 
the appellants. 
R. K. Garg. S. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and M. K. Rama-
murthi, for the respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Bachawat, J. Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam of Kumbako-
nam was the inamholder of lands in Kannibada Zamin, Dindigul 
Taluk, Madurai District. In 1883, the then mathadhipathi 
granted a perpetual lease of the melwaram and kudiwaram interest 
n 
in a portion of the in am lands to one Chinn a Gopiya Goundar, 
the grandfather of the plaintiff-respondent on an annual rent of 
Rs. 70. 
The demised lands are the subject-matter of the pre-
sent suit. 
Since 1883 until January 1950 Chinna Gopiya Goun-
dar and his descendants were in uninterrupted possession and 
• 
enjoyment of the suit lands. 
In 1915, the mathadhipathi died 
E without nominating a successor. S

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.