SRINIVASA REDDIAR AND OTHERS versus N. RAMASWAMY REDDIAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 16-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SRINIVASA REDDIAR AND OTIIERS 
v. 
N. RAMASWA'.\IY REDDIAR AND ANOTIIER 
December 16, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.) 
Limitation Act (9 of 1908), Arr. 134-B-A/icnation by manager of 
properties of religious enduwmenl as his ow11-Sui1 for declaration of 
title by alienee-lf governed by article--Star1ing point of limitation. 
The lands in dispute had been gran~ed in inam to a temple. By about 
1929 1he then manager of lhe temple disposed of all 
those propertiea 
under various saJe-deedo;, resigned his position and left the village. 
Ho 
was therefore removed from the management of the 1cmple and 
other 
persons had 1aken up the position as de facto managers from 1929. 
A:; 
a result of successive alienation.o; of the properties. the appellants became 
eolitlcd 10 1hem. 
In 1951. lhe respondenls were appoimed truslees of 
lhe temple and under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endow-
menls Act, 1951. they applied, to the Magis1ra1e. for possession of the 
properties and the Magislrate ordered delivery of possession. 
Before the 
order could be executed the appellant< filed the suit in 1954, for a de-
claration of their title to the properti~ and for an injunction restraining 
the respondents from interfering vr'ith their possession. 
The trial Court 
and the lower appellate Court decreed the suit. 
In second appeal. the 
High Court held that the su;t was governed by Art. 134-B of the Limita-
tion Act. 1908, which w3' introduced into the Act on 1st January 1929; 
and that the appellants' claim in regard to the properties covered by the 
sale-deeds of 1917 and 1926. should be rejected. because, the alienees 
had not acquired title by ad>lerse possession by 1st January, 1929, and 
as the alienor was still alive. the plea of adverse possession could not be 
-;u.,tained under that article. 
In appeal to this Court it was contended that article 134-B would not 
apply to the pment case but that Art. 144 would apply, because. 
the 
1ransfers were effected by the alienor on the 
representations 
that the 
properties belonged to him as his separate property; and that even if the 
article applied, the decision of the High Court was erroneous, because 
the transferor had hcen removed from management more than 12 yean 
before the suit was filed. 
HELD : Though Art. 134-B applied to the facts of the case, since 
the appellants had acquired title to the propert'cs by prescription. the 
decree passed by the High Court. in so far as it was against the appel-
lants, should be set a~ide. 
Column 1 of the article provides for suit, brought .. inter alia, by the 
manager of a Hindu religious or charitable endowment to recover posses-
<1ion of immovable property comprised in the endowment, 
which 
has 
beea transferred by a previous manager for valuable consideration. The 
period prescribed for such suit< is 12 years. and the time from which the 
period begins to run is the death. rcsiRnation or removal of the transferor. 
The finding. recorded by the High Court in the present case show that 
all the ingredient• prescribed by the first column of the Article namely : 
A 
• 
B-
• 
c 
I> 
• 
E 
F 
• 
G 
; . 
H 
' 
B 
• 
c 
• 
D 
• 
E 
I' 
) 
G 
. \ 
H 
SRINIVASA v. RAMASWAMY (Gajendragadkar, C.I.) 
121 
(i) that the property belonged to the endowment, (ii) that it was trans-
ferred by a previous manager; and (iii) that the transfer was for valuable 
consideration, were satisfied. 
The character of the representations made 
by the previous manager in regard to his relation with the property which 
is the subject-matter of transfer, is irrelevant 
for 
the purpose of the 
Article. 
But if a suit had been brought by the respondents on the date 
when they were appointed trustees, it would have been barred under the 
Article, because more than 12 years had elapsed since the date of the 
removal of the previous manager who had transferred the properties; and 
therefore, the trial Court and the lower appellate Court were right in 
.decreeing the appellants' suit in its entirety. [129 C-D, H; 132 HJ 
Mahant Sudarsan Das v. Mahant Ram Kirpal Das cl Ors. L. R. 77 
I.A. 42, applied. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 801 of 
1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
September 2, 1959 of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 774 of 1957. 
T. V. R. Tatachari, for the appellants. 
P. Raghaviah and R. Ganapathy Iyer, for the respondents. 
The Jud

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