Skip to content


Vanchinatha Iyer Vs. Rajagopala Iyer and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1921)41MLJ372
AppellantVanchinatha Iyer
RespondentRajagopala Iyer and ors.
Cases Referred and Secretary of State v. Vira Rayan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
.....offices falling under section 3 clause (4), one of which is the office of village purohit or priest in proprietary estates as well as' in ryotwari villages. venkatrama sastri argues that the suit is barred by limitation in respect of it as section 14 of act iii of 1895 prescribes a term of three years' limitation for suits under the act and more than 3 years had elapsed on the date of suit since the widow died in 1902. 7. act iii of 1895 however has no provision corresponding to section 28 of the limitation act which extinguishes the right of persons who fail to sue in time, see pichuvayyar v......barred by limitation in respect of it as section 14 of act iii of 1895 prescribes a term of three years' limitation for suits under the act and more than 3 years had elapsed on the date of suit since the widow died in 1902. ,7. act iii of 1895 however has no provision corresponding to section 28 of the limitation act which extinguishes the right of persons who fail to sue in time, see pichuvayyar v. vilakku-dayan asari i.l.r. 21 mad 134 and secretary of state v. vira rayan i.l.r. 9 mad 175 .8. the plaintiff had 60 years under article 148 of the limitation act to sue for redemption from the date of the mortgage and 12 years to sue for possession from the date of the widow's death under article 141.10. his suit is therefore in time in respect of this item and as there is no other point.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs brought this suit to recover three items of property in Siruvakkam and Konericuppam Villages on the strength of their reversionary right as heirs to the late Samu Ayyar. This suit failed in the first court on a finding by the District Munsif on the question of plaintiff's father's adoption, but on appeal the Subordinate Judge found this point in their favour and gave them a decree for possession on payment of.the amount spent by 1st defendant in redeeming the property from the hands of mortgagees.

2. In Second Appeal the 1st defendant has for the fisrt time raised the contention that the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction over the suit which was brought for the recovery of the emoluments of the office of purohit in a proprietary estate and we have allowed him to argue this point of law, seeing that if he is right in his contention the decree obtained by the plaintiff cannot stand.

3. After the; Full Bench decision in Kandappa Achary v. Vengama Naidu 25 M.L.J. 42, which supported Mutyala Papayya v. Koneri Musammullu : (1912)22MLJ156 and overruled VSerabhaclran Achari v. Suppiah Achari I.L.R. (1909) Mad. 448 it must be regarded as settled law that Section 13 of Madras Act III of 1895 confers jurisdiction on Revenue Courts over suits for the recoveryjof the emoluments of hereditary offices falling under Section 3 Clause (4), one of which is the office of village purohit or priest in proprietary estates as well as' in ryotwari villages. At the same time Section 21 ousts the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in respect of such suits.

4. Of course a suit in which the plaintiff does not need to rely on his right to the office and its emoluments in order to succeed, such as would be the case in the instance cited in the words of Subramania Aiyar J. at page 210 of Moovula Seetham Naidu v. Doodi Rami Naidu 20 M.L.J. 91 stands on a different footing, Hut this is not such a case. In the pLalnt in this suit the plaintiff mentions expressly the nature of the property he sues to recover viz. purohit maniam and traces his descent by a geneological tree to the previous office holders.

5. The plaintiff's suit must accordingly be dismissed in respect of the first two items but 'without costs as the point of jurisdiction was taken at a late stage. This dismissal will be without prejudice to any suit that may hereafter be filed in the proper court.

6. The third item in suit is an enfranchised inarti. Mr. Venkatrama Sastri argues that the suit is barred by limitation in respect of it as Section 14 of Act III of 1895 prescribes a term of three years' limitation for suits under the Act and more than 3 years had elapsed on the date of suit since the widow died in 1902. ,

7. Act III of 1895 however has no provision corresponding to Section 28 of the Limitation Act which extinguishes the right of persons who fail to sue in time, See Pichuvayyar v. Vilakku-dayan Asari I.L.R. 21 Mad 134 and Secretary of State v. Vira Rayan I.L.R. 9 Mad 175 .

8. The plaintiff had 60 years under Article 148 of the Limitation Act to sue for redemption from the date of the mortgage and 12 years to sue for possession from the date of the widow's death under Article 141.

10. His suit is therefore in time in respect of this item and as there is no other point the lower court's decree will be modified by excluding items 1 and 2 and retaining item 3 with costs throughout on the proportionate value of that item, the amount to be paid by the plaintiff being reduced from Rs. 146 to Rs. 21.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //