Case: Atyam Veerraju And Others Vs. Pechetti Venkanna And Others

2. The case made in the plaint is as follows : The suit lands belong to Sri Janardhana Swami Varu. In 1851, one Ponnuri Anandu, the then Archaka and de facto trustee of the temple, arranged with Nuli Peda Narasimhulu, the great grandfather of the first defendant, that the latter would supply one-fourth seer of gingelly oil every day to the temple and instead of receiving the price of the oil would enjoy the income of the lands. The arrangement was reduced into writing. The first defendant and his predecessors have been in possession of the lands under this arrangement. The arrangement did not amount to an alienation; it gave only a licence to receive the income and appropriate it towards the price of the oil. Even if the arrangement amounted to a lease, the plaintiff has a right to put an end to it and to recover the lands. The arrangement was put an end to by notices dated December 6, 1948 and August 31 1949 issued by the plaintiffs advocate to the first defendant. The second defendant is a lessee of the suit lands under the first defendant.3. The defence is as follows : The plaintiff is not the trustee of the deity and has no right to sue on its behalf. There was no arrangement as alleged in the plaint. The first defendant is entitled to the suit lands subject only to the burden of supplying one fourth seer of gingelly oil every day to the temple out of its income. In 1851, there was an arrangement between Peda Narasimhulu, the great grandfather of the first defendant and Ponnuri Anandu, the then Archaka of the temple that Peda Narasimhulu would provide one-fourth seer of gingelly oil every day to the temple out of the income of the suit land. This arrangement was reduced into writing. When this arrangement was made in 1851, Peda Narasimhulu was the owner in possession of the lands. Assuming that he got possession of the lands under the arrangement, Ponnuri Anandu and not the deity was the owner. Assuming that the lands belonged to the deity, the arrangement amounted to a transfer for valuable consideration of a permanent right for possession and enjoyment of the lands in favour of Peda Narasimhulu and his successors-in-interest, reserving for the deity only the right to the supply of the oil. The arrangement is binding on the deity. In any event Peda Narasimhula and his successors-in-interest have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the lands for over a century and have acquired title to the lands by adverse possession subject only to the burden of supplying the oil. The suit filed a century after the death or termination of office of Ponnuri Anandu is barred by time. Pending the suit, the first defendant died, and his legal representatives, the third and fourth defendants, were substituted in his place.4. The Subordinate Judge, Eluru negatived the defence contention that the plaintiff is not the trustee of the temple, and this contention is no longer pressed. He found that (1) the suit lands belong to the deity, (2) the arrangement of 1851 amounted to a permanent lease of the lands by the then Archaka and de facto trustee of the temple to Peda Narasimhulu, on condition of his supplying one-fourth seer of gingelly oil every day to the temple, and (3) the first defendant and his predecessors-in-interest have acquired title to the lands by adverse possession burdened with this condition. On these findings, he dismissed the suit. This decree was confirmed by the High Court on appeal. Without expressing any opinion on the first two questions, the High Court agreed with the finding of the trail Court on the question of adverse possession. The plaintiff and two other persons now appeal to this Court by special leave.

Court's reasoning:
7. The documents disclosed by the defendants show that since 1851 Nuli Peda Narasimhulu, his son, Subbarayudu, his grandsons, Sriramulu and Narasimhulu and his great grandson, Nuli Subba Rao, possessed and enjoyed the suit lands. Exhibit B-1 dated October 19, 1895 shows a mortgage and lease for six years by Sriramulu and Narasimhulu, Ex. B-2 dated April 7, 1902 discloses a mortgage and lease by Sriramulu, Exs. B-3, B-4, B-5 and B-6 show a mortgage and lease for five years by Sriramulu on March 1, 1910 and Ex. B-7 dated March 10, 1938 and Ex. B-8 dated August 19, 1942 are leases of the suit lands for five years and eight years executed by Subba Rao. These documents and particularly Exs. B-3, B-4 and B5 recited that the lands were entered in the name of the deity in the village accounts of Cherukuvada and from generation to generation were in the possession and enjoyment of the family of Peda Narasimhulu who got them under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851 for purposes of Nanda Deepam (evening lighting) of the deity. It is not shown that these documents and the recitals in them were brought to the notice of the temple authorities. These unilateral declarations cannot affect the title of the deity. Moreover, these documents contain admissions that the lands were entered in the village accounts in the name of the deity. By a notice dated June, 16, 1929, the Hindu Religious Endowments Board demanded from Nuli Subba Rao annual contribution for the expenses of the temple. By his reply dated October 25, 1929, Nuli Subba Rao denied liability for the payment of the contribution and alleged that the lands were granted to his great grandfather, Peda Narasimhulu, by Ponnuri Anandu under the Sanad dated November 10, 1851, subject to the condition of supplying one- fourth seer of oil every day to the deity, and under the terms of the Sanad, the lands passed to Peda Narasimhulu and the deity is entitled to get only the oil and to no other right. But soon thereafter on notice to Nuli Subba Rao, the Board framed the scheme dated October 26, 1931 declaring the lands to be the properties of the temple. The documents produced by the defendants do not displace the entries in the Inam Fair Register, the Inam B Register and the Resurvey and Re-settlement Register, which show that the suit lands are Devadayam, the deity is the registered inamdar and the pattas were issued to the deity. We are satisfied that the deity is the owner of the lands. We reject the claim of the defendants that in 1851 either Peda Narasimhulu or Ponnuri Anandu was the owner.8. We also reject the claim of the defendants that by the Sanad dated November 10, 1851, the lands were conveyed to Peda Narasimhula subject to the burden of supplying oil for evening lighting purposes. Had the properties been conveyed by the Sanad to Peda Narasimhulu, he and his successors would have been entered in the village accounts as the inamdars and the pattas in respect of the suit lands would have been issued to them. But all along, the deity is shown as the registered inamdar and the relevant pattas were issued to the deity and not to Peda Narasimhulu or his successors. In spite of a notice served by the plaintiff, the legal representatives of Nuli Subba Rao did not produce the Sanad. We are unable to accept their explanation that they are not in possession of the Sanad.Only the Sanad could show what interest was granted by it. The most striking feature of this case and the thing which tilts the scales against the defendants is the non-production of this Sanad. The defendants have deliberately withheld this document. We should, therefore, make every presumption against them to their disadvantage consistent with the facts.We hold that the document, if produced, would have shown that the tenancy is not permanent. The proved facts are consistent with a lease rather than a license. The manager of the temple in the ordinary course of management had authority to grant leases of the agricultural lands from year to year. Considering all these facts, we hold that the Sanad granted to Peda Narasimhulu a lease of the suit lands from year to year in consideration of his rendering one-fourth seer of gingelly oil every day to themanager of the temple had no authority to grant a permanent lease of the temple lands at a fixed rent without any legal necessity; and had he granted such a lease, it would have endured for the tenure of his office only. See Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Baluswami Ayyar, 48 Ind App 302 : (AIR 1922 PC 123). But he had ample power in the course of management to grant a lease from year to year. The lease from year to year granted by Ponnuri Anandu in 1851 was, therefore, binding on the temple. This lease did not terminate with the expiry of the office of Ponnuri Anandu or the succeeding managers. It continued of its own force until it was terminated by notice in 1949. The possession of the tenants during the continuance of this lease was not adverse to the temple.It is also well settled that during the continuance of the tenancy, the tenant cannot acquire by prescription a permanent right of occupancy in derogation of the landlords title by mere assertion of such a right to the knowledge of the landlord.It follows that during the period from 1851 to 1949 the possession of Peda Narasimhula and his successors-in-interest was not adverse to the deity. During the period from 1851 to 1929 the title of the deity was not extinguished by adverse possession under S. 28 read with Art. 144 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Act IX of 1908) and the corresponding S. 28 and Art. 144 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (Act XV of 1877), S. 29 and Art. 145 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1871 (Act IX of 1871) and S. I, Cl. 12 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1859 (Act XIV of 1859). Nor was the title of the deity extinguished during the period from 1929 to 1949 by the operation of S. 28 read with Art. 134-B introduced in the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 by the Limitation (Amendment) Act, (Act I of 1929). In our opinion, the transfer contemplated by Art. 134-B is an illegal or unauthorised transfer by a previous manager. Article 134-B does not apply to a suit for recovery of a property, where the property has been lawfully transferred by a previous manager, and the transfer remains effective after his death, resignation of removal. The lease of 1851 by the previous manager was lawful and binding on the temple, and continued of its own force until 1949. Consequently, Art. 134-B has no application to the present suit. The suit is one by a landlord to recover possession from a tenant and is governed by Art. 139. The tenancy was determined in 1949, and the suit being instituted on November 1, 1954 is well within time. The contention that Peda Narasimhulu and his successors-in-interest acquired title to the suit lands by prescription and the suit is barred by limitation is, therefore, rejected.The validity of the notice terminating the tenancy is not disputed. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to recover the suit lands.