JUDGMENT
Das, J.
1. These analogous appeals arise out of suits instituted by the appellant to eject the respondents from certain lands which are specified in the plaint. The plaintiff is the mahant of the Marona math and his case is that his predecessor in title, Mahant Bisseswar, settled these lands in perpetuity with the defendants. He says that Mahant Bisseswar was not entitled to settle these lands in perpetuity, as there was neither necessity for such settlement nor any benefit which accrued to the math in question.
2. The Court of first instance agreed with the contentions put forward on behalf of the plaintiff and decreed the suits. The learned Judge in the Court below has differed from the Court of first instance and has dismissed the suits.
3. Now the learned Judge has found that the lease was not a perpetual lease; secondly, that it was not a lease at a fixed rent. He has further found that the late mahant granted these leases in the ordinary course of management and that, therefore, they are binding upon his successor in interest. Mr. Lachmi Narain Sinha on behalf of the appellant argues that the learned Judge in the Court below has not displaced the finding of the Court of first instance, viz., that these lands were in the cultivating possession of the mahant and that they yielded him a profit of 10 to 15 maunds per bigha, and he strongly relies upon the case of Palaniappa Chetty v. Sreemath Deivasikamony Pandara Sannadhi 39 Ind. Cas. 722 : 40 M. 709 : 21 C.W.N. 729: 15 A.L.J. 485 : 1 P.L.W. 697 : 33 M.L.J. 1 : 19 Bom. L.R. 667 : 22 M.L.T. 1 : 1917) M.W.N. 507 : 26 C.L.J. 153 : 6 L.W. 222 : 441. A. 147 P.C.), In that case the mahant sold a piece of land and rent the sale-proceeds at a remunerative rate of interest to somebody else, and the Judicial Committee held that it was not the ordinary coarse of business for a mahant of an institution to engage in a money-lending business. That case is entirely distinguishable. In this case it was for the mahant to decide whether it was profitable for him to cultivate the land himself or to let it out to tenants, and I can see no difference at all between the case of a mahant and the case of the manager of a joint family. I have always entertained the view that the karta of a joint family must have a large discretion in these matters and that we ought not to fetter his discretion unduly. We must of course be satisfied that he entered into the transaction in the ordinary course of management. That is the test which was laid down by the Judicial Committee in the leading case of Hunoomanpersaud Panday v. Musammat Babooee Munraj Koonweres 6 M.I.A. 393 : 18 W.R. 81n; Sevestre 253n; 2 Suth P.C.J. 29 : 1 Sar. P.C.J. 552 : 19 R.R. 147. That is the best which we must apply to this case Did the mahant let these lands to the defendants in the ordinary course of business? The lower Appellate Court has found that be did. I agree with the decision of the learned Judge of the Court below and would accordingly dismiss these appeals with costs in Appeal No. 592.
Jwala Prasad, Acting, C.J.
4. I agree.
