On April 8, 1910, Bharamappa made a gift of the entire premises companysisting of plots 1 a and 1 b to the Dakshina Maharashtra Digambar Jain Sabha, a registered body, for the purpose of building a school upon it for the education of Jain students.
23 who was dismissed from the suit on the ground of misdescription.
The suit was dismissed by the trial judge but on appeal by the plaintiff to the High Court of Bombay, the trial companyrts judgment was reversed and the plaintiffs claim for khas possession was allowed in respect of the suit land against all the defendants with the exception of defendant No.
275 of 1946 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 17th day of December, 1945, in Special Civil Suit No.
23 in the suit, but under a wrong name.
The Jain Sabha was impleaded as defendant No.
50 per annum for the first six years and thereafter at the rate of Rs.
On August 27, 1932, the plaintiff instituted a suit, being Suit No.
The judgment of the High Court is dated the 26th of November, 1942.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 19th day of October, 1949, of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Bavdekar and Dixit JJ.
On 3rd December, 1943, the plaintiff appellant companymenced the present suit against the respondent Jain Sabha claiming khas possession of the land gifted in its favour by Bharamappa, alleging that as the original permanent lease was number binding on the Math for number being supported by legal necessity, the defendant companyld number acquire any title by grant from the successor of the lessee.
The defendant Sabha resisted the suit and the two material questions round which the companytroversy centred were 1 whether the original permanent lease was supported by legal necessity, and even if it was number, 2 whether the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation under article 134 B of the Indian Limitation Act?
80 of 1932, against the heirs and successors of Bharamappa for recovery of possession of the land companyprised in the permanent lease on the allegation that there being numberlegal necessity for granting the lease, the alienation was number binding on the Math and became void on the death of the last Mahant.
21 of 1944 of the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division , Hubli.
34, in favour of one Pradhanappa and the rent agreed to be paid by the lessee was Rs.
On November 25, 1925, the present plaintiff Gurusidhwaswami became the head of the Math.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In April, 1905, another part of the land, which is described in Schedule 1 a to the plaint, was put up for sale in execution of a decree against Pradhanappas heirs and it was purchased by one Kadayya, and Kadayya in his turn sold the same to Bharamappa who had already purchased Schedule 1 b plot by private purchase.
On June 19,1892, Pradhanappa sold a portion of the lease hold property, which is described in Schedule 1 b to the plaint, to a person named Bharamappa.
25 annually.
R. Madhavi K. R. Bengeri, with him for the respondent, 1953.
In 1897 Gurusidhwaswami died and was succeeded by his disciple Gangadhar Swami who did number repudiate the permanent lease granted by his predecessor and went on accepting rents from the lessee in the same way as before.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for lndia J. B. Dadachanji, with him for the appellant.
in Appeal from Original Decree No.
The facts of the case lie within a short companypass and the whole companytroversy, so far as, this appeal is companycerned, centres round the short point as to whether or number the plaintiff s suit is barred by limitation.
187 of 1952.
Both the companyrts below have decided this point against the plaintiff and he has companye up on appeal before us.
On November 13, 1887, Gurusidhwaswami, who was the then head of this religious institution, granted a permanent lease of a tract of land belonging to the Math and forming part of R. No.
21 of 1924.
The plaintiff appellant is the spiritual bead or Mathadhipati of a Lingayet Math known as Murusavirmath situated within Hubli Taluka in the district of Dharwar.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MUKHERJEA J. This appeal is directed against a judgment and decree of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dated October 19, 1949, affirming, in appeal, those of the Civil Judge, Hubli, passed in Special Suit No.
On August 31, 1920, Gangadhar Swami died and for some time after his death the affairs of the Math were in the hands of a companymittee of management.
