Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned lands granted in inam to a temple. By 1929, the manager of the temple had sold all the properties through various sale deeds and left the village. Other persons then managed the temple as de facto managers. Through successive alienations, the appellants became entitled to the properties. In 1951, the respondents were appointed trustees of the temple under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951. They approached the Magistrate and obtained an order for delivery of possession. Before that order could be executed, the appellants filed a suit in 1954 seeking a declaration of title and an injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their possession. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit. On second appeal, the High Court held that the suit was governed by Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908, which was introduced on 1 January 1929, and that the appellants’ claim regarding properties under sale deeds of 1917 and 1926 should fail because the alienees had not acquired title by adverse possession by 1 January 1929 and the alienor was still alive. The matter was then brought to the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that Article 134-B did not apply and that Article 144 was the correct provision because the alienor had transferred the properties on the representation that they were his separate property.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act, 1908 – Article 134-B versus Article 144 – Applicability to Alienations by Manager of Religious Endowment – The appeal raised the question whether a suit by alienees for declaration of title to temple properties is governed by Article 134-B of the Limitation Act, 1908 (which requires perfection of title by adverse possession by 1 January 1929 and that the transferor be dead) or by Article 144 (general limitation for possession). The High Court had applied Article 134-B and rejected the claim for properties sold in 1917 and 1926 because the alienees had not perfected title by adverse possession by the relevant date and the alienor was still alive. The appellant contended that Article 144 applied because the alienor had transferred the properties on the representation that they were his separate property.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Article 134-B or Article 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies to a suit for declaration of title filed by alienees of temple properties where the alienor was the manager who represented the properties as his own.
Law Points
- Applicability of Article 134-B of Limitation Act
- 1908 to suits for declaration by alienees of endowed property
- Distinction between Article 134-B and Article 144 of Limitation Act
- 1908
- Adverse possession against religious endowment
- Limitation for suits by alienees where alienor represented property as personal
