AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The plaintiff in Original Suit No. 16 of 1905 was the 1st defendant in Original Suit No. 10 of 1905. The judgment that we have just delivered in
the other case Pallithara Vayal Kotavalli Nambudri Illath Kesavan Nambudri and Another Vs. Abhikesava Vethiar and Others, covers the present
case also. But some additional arguments were urged on behalf of the plaintiff in this case by Mr. Ananthakrishna Aiyar. He contended that so far
as his client was concerned, there was no denial in 1875. This statement of his we cannot accept. Exhibit XII shows that the plaintiffs in that case,
namely, the predecessors of the present 4th and 5th defendants, claimed to be themselves Urallars and would not admit the claim of any other
person to the Uraima. The present 1st defendant was joined subsequently to the institution of the suit as the 2nd defendant in that case. An issue
was expressly raised as to whether the then plaintiffs were alone competent to institute that suit, and on that issue the District Munsif stated that it
was unnecessary for him to express an opinion. On the question as to whether the 1st defendant, then the 2nd defendant, was entitled to the
Uraima, he passed a decree dismissing the Samudayi and decreeing a certain sum of money in favour of the then plaintiffs on behalf of the
Devaswom. The decree for possession on behalf of the Devaswom cannot enure to the benefit of the then 2nd defendant, because the District
Munsif expressly stated he would not decide, in the teeth of the plaintiff''s denial, that the 2nd defendant had the Uraima right. It is not contended
by Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar that the plaintiff in this case has been in actual possession of the suit temples. He claims to have been in possession
constructively because the defendants were in possession and their possession enured to his benefit, He placed his case on the same fooling as that
of a tenant-in-common, who is not actually in management of the common property and whose title is denied. Even if the possession of the present
plaintiff was only that of a tenant-in-common, we should be prepared to hold that there was sufficient evidence as to exclusion. There is nothing in
Jogendranath Rai v. Baldeo Das ILR (1907) C. 961 and in FREEMAN on Co-tenancy, Section 221, to which we were referred, which militates
against the view that the present plaintiff has been excluded from participation in the Uraima right of the plaint temples. And if there was such
exclusion, Mr. Anantakrishna Aiyar does not contend he would not be barred. But we are inclined to place the present case on a different tooting,
because the possession of a joint Urallar is not that of a mere tenant-in-common but that of a joint tenant. The acts of the other trustees in
management have been held to be illegal if any one trustee is not consulted in the management of the trust properties except in cases where by
custom or by practice or the course of management any one trustee who does not actually participate may be deemed to have accepted or
concurred in the management of the others. The acts of the 5th and 6th defendants in this case from the year 1875 to which Exhibit XII relates are
acts which are only consistent with the explanation of a consistent denial of plaintiffs '' rights and a consistent exclusion from participation in the
management of the plaint temple. We are, therefore, quite prepared to hold that the District Judge is right in his finding that the plaintiff''s suit is
barred by limitation. We dismiss the appeal with costs.