{"id":126850,"date":"1965-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1965-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965"},"modified":"2015-08-06T18:01:35","modified_gmt":"2015-08-06T12:31:35","slug":"sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965","title":{"rendered":"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And … vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal … on 23 September, 1965"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And … vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal … on 23 September, 1965<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1603, \t\t 1966 SCR (1) 908<\/div>\n
Author: R Bachawat<\/div>\n
Bench: Bachawat, R.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSRI SARANGADEVAR PERIA MATAM AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAMASWAMY GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n23\/09\/1965\n\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nBENCH:\nBACHAWAT, R.S.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nMUDHOLKAR, J.R.\n\nCITATION:\n 1966 AIR 1603\t\t  1966 SCR  (1) 908\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1992 SC1110\t (30)\n\n\nACT:\nIndian\tLimitation  Act\t (9 of 1908), s. 28  and  Art.\t144-\nAbsence of legally appointed mathadhipathi-Right of math  to\nrecover endowed properrty-Starting point of Iimitation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe mathadhipathi of the, appellant math granted a perpetual\nlease  of  the\tmath  properties, at a\tfixed  rent  to\t the\npredecessor of the respondent in 1883, but without any legal\nnecessity.  The mathadipathi died in 1915.  From 1915  there\nwas  only a de facto manager of the math for 20\t years.\t  In\n1939, the present mathadhipathi was elected and in 1950\t the\nmath obtained possession of the properties.  Since 1915\t the\nrespondent and his predecessors did not pay any rent to the,\nmath.\tIn 1954, the respondent filed the suit\tagainst\t the\nmath  reprcsented  by  the  mathadipathi,  for\trecovery  of\npossession  of he properties claiming title by adverse\tpos-\nsession.  The trial court decreed the suit.  On appeal,\t the\ndecree was set aside, but was restored by the High Court  on\nfurther appeal.\nin  the appeal to this Court the appellants  contended\tthat\nadverse possession could not run till the mathadhipathi\t was\nappointed, because, the right to sue for the recovery of the\nmath  properties  vested  only\tin  the\t legally   appointed\nmathadhipathi; and before possession could be adverse  there\nmust be a competitor who, by due vigilance, could avoid\t the\nrunning of time,.\nHELD : In the absence of legal necessity, the lease of\t1883\nendured\t  only\tduring\tthe  life  time\t of   the   previous\nmathadhipathi  and  terminated\ton his death  in  1915,\t and\npossession thereafter of the respondent and his\t predecessor\nwas adverse to the math.  Therefore, the time under Art. 144\nof  the Limitation Act, 1908, commenced to run in  1915\t and\nthe  absence  of a legally appointed mathadhipathi  did\t not\nprevent the running of time.  Thus, the title of the math to\nthe  suit  properties became extinguished in  1927  and\t the\n'respondent acquired title by prescription, by operation  of\ns. 28 and art. 144. [910 E; 913 H; 914 C]\nA math is the owner of endowed property and like an idol  is\na juristic person having the power of acquiring, owning\t and\npossessing  properties and having the capacity of suing\t and\nbeing  sued.  It. may acquire property by  prescription\t and\nlikewise lose it by adverse possession.\t A legally appointed\nmathadhipathi  has  large beneficial interests in  the\tmath\nproperties and he may sue on its behalf for recovery of\t its\nproperties.  In his absence, a de facto mathadhipathi may do\nso, and where necessary, a disciple or other beneficiary  of\nthe  math may take steps for vindicating its  legal  rights.\nTherefore,   if\t before\t the   mathadhipathi's\t appointment\nlimitation  under art. 144 had commenced to run against\t the\nmath, the appointment does not give either the, math or\t the\nmathadhipathi a new right of suit or a fresh starting  point\nof  limitation,\t and  so, if the title of the  math  to\t any\nproperty  is extinguished by adverse possession, the  rights\nof  all beneficiaries of the math in the property  are\talso\nextinguished.\n[912 A-D; 912 H-913 B]\nJagadindra  Nath Roy v. Hementa Kumari Debi, (1904)  1.1.R..\n32 Cal. 129, distinguished.\n\t\t\t    909\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 544 of
\n1963.\n<\/p>\n
Appeal\tby special leave from the judgment and decree  dated
\nJuly 16, 1959 of Madras High Court in Second Appeal No.\t 513
\nof 1957.\n<\/p>\n
A.V. Viswanatha Sastri, S. S. Javali and Ganapathi Iyer, for
\nappellants.\n<\/p>\n
R.   K.\t Garg.\tS. C. Agarwal, D. P. Singh and M.  K.  Rama-
\nmurthi, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nBachawat, J. Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam of Kumbakowas\t the
\ninamholder  of\tlands in Kannibada  Zamin,  Dindigul  taluk,
\nMadurai District.  In 1883, the then mathadhipathi granted a
\nperpetual lease of the melwaram and kudiwaram interest in  a
\nportion of the inam lands to one Chinna Gopiya Goundar,\t the
\ngrandfather of the plaintiff-respondent on an annual rent of
\nRs.  70.   The demised lands are the subject-matter  of\t the
\npresent\t suit.\tSince 1883 until January 1950 Chinna  Gopiya
\nGoundar and his descendants were in uninterrupted possession
\nand enjoyment of the suit lands.  In 1915, the mathadhipathi
\ndied  without  nominating  a  successor.   Since  1915,\t the
\ndescendants of Chinna Gopia Goundar did not pay any rent  to
\nthe math.  Between 1915 and 1939 there was no mathadhipathi.
\nOne  Basavan  Chetti  was in management of the\tmath  for  a
\nperiod of 20 years from 1915.  The present mathadhipathi was
\nelected by the disciples of the Math in 1939.  In 1928,\t the
\nCollector  of  Madurai\tpassed an order\t resuming  the\tinam
\nlands,\tand  directing\tfull assessment\t of  the  lands\t and
\npayment of the assessment to the math for its upkeep.  After
\nresumption, the lands were transferred from the “B” Register
\nof  inam lands to the “A” Register of ryotwari lands  and  a
\njoint  patta  was issued in the name of\t the  plaintiff\t and
\nother  persons\tin possession of the lands.   The  plaintiff
\ncontinued to possess the suit lands until January, 1950 when
\nthe math obtained possession of the lands.  On February\t 18,
\n1954,  the  plaintiff  instituted a suit  against  the\tmath
\nrepresented  by\t its present mathadhipathi and an  agent  of
\ntile math claiming recovery of possession of the suit lands.
\nThe plaintiff claimed that he acquired title to the lands by
\nadverse\t possession end by the issue of a ryotwar; patta  in
\nhis  favour on the resumption of the inam.  The\t Subordinate
\nJudge  of Dindigul accepted the plaintiff’s contention,\t and
\ndecreed the suit.  On appeal, the District Judge
\n910<\/span>
\nof Madurai set aside the decree and dismissed the suit.\t  On
\nsecond\tappeal,\t the  High  Court  of  Madras  restored\t the
\njudgment   and\tdecree\tof  the\t Subordinate   Judge.\t The
\ndefendants  now\t appeal\t to this  Court\t by  special  leave.
\nDuring the pendency of the appeal, the\tplaintiff-respondent
\ndied and his legal representatives have been substituted  in
\nhis place.\n<\/p>\n
The  plaintiff\tclaimed\t title\tto the\tsuit  lands  on\t the
\nfollwoing grounds : (1) Since 1915 he and his  predecessors-
\nin-interest were in adverse possession of the lands, and  on
\nthe  expiry  of 12 years in 1927  he  acquired\tprescriptive
\ntitle  to  the lands under s. 28 read with Art. 144  of\t the
\nIndian\t Limitation  Act,  1908;  (2)  by   the\t  resumption
\nproceedings and the grant of the ryotwari patta a new tenure
\nwas created in his favour and he acquired full ownership  in
\nthe  lands;  and  (3)  in  any\tevent,\the  was\t in  adverse
\npossession of the lands since 1928, and on the expiry of  12
\nyears  in 1940 he acquired prescriptive title to  the  lands
\nunder  s. 28 read with Art. 134-B of the  Indian  Limitation
\nAct, 1908.  We are of the opinion that the first  contention
\nof  the plaintiff should be accepted, and it is,  therefore,
\nnot  necessary\tto  consider the other two  grounds  of\t his
\nclaim.\n<\/p>\n
In   the   absence   of\t legal\t necessity,   the   previous
\nmathadhipathi had no power to grant a perpetual lease of the
\nmath properties at a fixed rent.  Legal necessity is neither
\nalleged\t nor  proved.  But the mathadhipathi  had  power  to
\ngrant  a  lease which could endure for\this  lifetime.\t The
\nlease of 1883, therefore, endured during the lifetime of the
\nprevious  mathadhipathi,  and terminated on  hi,;  death  in
\n1915.\tSince 1915, the plaintiff and his  predecessors\t in-
\ninterest  did  not  pay\t any rent  to  the  math,  and\tthey
\npossessed  the\tlands on their own behalf adversely  to\t the
\nmath.\tBefore\tthe insertion of Art. 134-B  in\t the  Indian
\nLimitation Act, 1908 by Act 1 of 1929, the suit for recovery
\nof the lands from the defendants would have been governed by
\nArt.  144.  The controversy is about the starting  point  of
\nlimitation of a suit for the recovery of the math properties
\nunder Art. 144.\t Did the limitation commence on the date  of
\nthe death of the previous mathadhipathi, or did it  commence
\non the data of election of the present mathadhipathi ?
\nOn  behalf of the appellants, Mr. Ganapathy  lyer  contended
\nthat  the  right  to  sue for  the  recovery  of  the  math-
\nproperties vests in the legally appointed mathadhipathi\t and
\nadverse\t  possession  against  him  cannot  run\t until\t his
\nappointment.   In support of his contention, be relied\tupon
\nthe minority judgment of a Full Bench
\n\t\t\t    911<\/span>
\nof    the   Madras   High   Court   in\t  Venkateswara\t  v.
\nVenkatesa(1),  Kameswara  Rao  v.  Somanna(2)  and  Manikkam
\nPillai\tv.  Thani Kachalam Pillai(3).  He argued  that\tthis
\nview  has  received legislative sanction in Art. 96  of\t the
\nIndian\tLimitation Act, 1963.  He relied upon the  following
\nobservations  in  Jagadindra  Nath  Roy\t v.  Hemanta  Kumari
\nDebi(4)\t “the  possession and management  of  the  dedicated
\nproperty  belongs to the sebait.  And this carries  with  it
\nthe  right  to bring whatever suits are\t necessary  for\t the
\nprotection  of\tthe property.  Every such right of  suit  is
\nvested in the sebait and not in the idol.” Relying on Murray
\nv.  The\t East  India  Company(-‘)  and\tMeyappa\t Chetty\t  v.
\nSubramanian Chetty(6) and several decisions under Arts.\t 120
\nand  110  of the Indian Limitation Act, 1910,  he  submitted
\nthat  the cause of action does not accrue and time does\t not
\ncommence  to run unless there is someone who  can  institute
\nthe  suit.   Relying  on  Radhamoni  Devi  v.  Collector  of
\nKhulna(7) and Srischandra Nandy v. Baijnath Jugal Kishore(8)
\nhe  contended  that before possession can be  adverse  there
\nmust  be a competitor who by due vigilance could  avoid\t the
\nrunning of time.\n<\/p>\n
Mr. Garg on behalf of the respondents contended that adverse
\npossession commenced to run against the math on the death of
\nthe mathadhipathi who granted the lease and the operation of
\nthe  Limitation Act is not affected by the fact\t that  there
\nwas  no\t legal\tmanager\t of the math.\tIn  support  of\t his
\ncontention, he relied upon the majority judgment of the Full
\nBench  of the Madras High Court in  Venkateswara’s  case(1),
\nMonmohan  Haldar  v. Dibbendu Prosad  Ray  Chaudhuri(9)\t and
\nAdministrator-General  of  Bengal v.  Balkissen\t Misser(10).
\nRelying\t  on  Pramatha\tNath  Mullick  v.  Pradyumna   Kumar
\nMullick<\/a>(11),  he submitted that a math, like an idol, has  a
\njuridical status with the power of suing and being sued.  He
\nargued\t that  in  the\tabsence\t of  a\t legally   appointed
\nmathadhipathi, a defacto manager could institute a suit\t for
\nrecovery  of the math properties, and the  Beneficiaries  of
\nthe endowment could take appropriate steps for the recovery,
\nand,  in  any event, the mere absence of machinery  for\t the
\ninstitution  of\t the suit would not suspend the\t running  of
\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n
We  are\t inclined  to accept  the  respondents’\t contention.
\nUnder\tArt.  144  of  the  Indian  Limitation\tAct,   1908,
\nlimitation   for  a  suit  by  a  math\tor  by\tany   person
\nrepresenting it for possession of im-\n<\/p>\n
(1). L. R. 1941 Mad. 599.\n<\/p>\n
(2) A. 1. R. 1955 Andhra Pradesh. 212.\n<\/p>\n
(3) A. 1. R. 1917 Mad. 706.\n<\/p>\n
(4) (1904) 1. L. R. 32 Cal. 129,141.\n<\/p>\n
(5) (1821) 5 B. & Ald. 204,217\t.\n<\/p>\n
(6) (1916) L. R. 43 1. A. 113,120.\n<\/p>\n
(7) (1900) L. R. 27 1. A. 136.\n<\/p>\n
(8) 1. L. R. 14 Patna. 327 P. C.\n<\/p>\n
(9)  (1949) T. L. R. 2 Cal. 263.\n<\/p>\n
(10) (1924) 1. L. R. 51 Cal. 953, 957-960.\n<\/p>\n
(11) (1925) L. R. 52 1. A. 245, 250.\n<\/p>\n
912<\/span><\/p>\n
movable\t properties belonging to it runs from the time\twhen
\nthe  possession\t of  the defendant becomes  adverse  to\t the
\nplaintiff.   The math is the owner of the endowed  property.
\nLike an idol, the math is a juristic person having the power
\nof  acquiring, owning and possessing properties\t and  having
\nthe  capacity  of  suing and being  sued.   Being  an  ideal
\nperson, it must of necessity act in relation to its temporal
\naffairs,   through   human   agency.\tSee   Babajirao\t  v.
\nLaxmandas(1).\tIt may acquire property by prescription\t and
\nmay  likewise lose property by adverse possession.   If\t the
\nmath while in possession of its property is dispossessed  or
\nif the possession of a stranger becomes adverse, it  suffers
\nan  injury and has the right to sue for the recovery of\t the
\nproperty.  If there is a legally appointed mathadhipathi, he
\nmay  institute the suit on its behalf; if not, the de  facto
\nmathadhipathi  may do so, see Mahadeo Prasad Singh v.  Karia
\nBharti(2);  and\t where,\t necessary,  a\tdisciple  or   other
\nbeneficiary  of the math may take steps for vindicating\t its
\nlegal  rights  by  the\tappointment  of\t a  receiver  having
\nauthority  to sue on its behalf, or by the institution of  a
\nsuit  in its name by a next friend appointed by\t the  Court.
\nWith  due diligence, the math or those interested in it\t may
\navoid  the  running  of time.\tThe  running  of  limitation
\nagainst\t the  math under Art. 144 is not  suspended  by\t the
\nabsence\t of  a\tlegally\t appointed  mathadhipathi;  clearly,
\nlimitation would run against it where it is managed by a  de
\nfacto\tmathadhipathi.\t See  Vithalbowa  v.  Narayan\tDaji
\nThite(3),  and\twe think it would run equally  if  there  is
\nneither a de jure nor a de facto mathadhipathi.
\nA  mathadhipathi is the manager and custodian of the  insti-
\ntution.\t  See  Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v.\t Balusami  Ayyar(4).
\nThe  office carries with it the right to manage and  possess
\nthe  endowed properties on behalf of the math and the  right
\nto sue on its behalf for the protection of those properties.
\nDuring the tenure of his office, the mathadhipathi has\talso
\nlarge  beneficial interests in the math properties, see\t The
\nCommissioner,  Hindu  Religious Endowments,  Madras  v.\t Sri
\nLakshmindra  Thirtha  Swamiar  of Srirur  Mutt<\/a>(5).   But  by
\nvirtue\tof  his office, he can possess and enjoy  only\tsuch
\nproperties as belong to the math.  If the title of the\tmath
\nto  any property is extinguished by adverse possession,\t the
\nrights of all beneficiaries of the math in the property\t are
\nalso  extinguished.  On his appointment,  the  mathadhipathi
\nacquires  no  right  to recover\t property  which  no  longer
\nbelongs\t to the math.  If before his appointment  limitation
\nunder Art. 144 has
\n(1) (1904) 1. L. R. 28 Bom. 215,223.\n<\/p>\n
(3) (1893) 1. L. R. 18 Bom. 507, 51 1.\n<\/p>\n
(2) (1934) L.R.62T.A. 47,51.\n<\/p>\n
(4)  L. R. 48 1. A. 302 at 311,315.\n<\/p>\n
(5)  [1954] S. C. R. 1005,1018-1020.\n<\/p>\n
913<\/span><\/p>\n
commenced to run against the math, the appointment does\t not
\ngive  either  the math or the mathadhipathi a new  right  of
\nsuit  or  a fresh starting point of  limitation\t under\tthat
\nArticle for recovery of the property.  In the instant  case,
\nthe present mathadhipathi was elected in 1939 when the title
\nof  the math to the suit lands was already  extinguished  by
\nadverse\t possession.   By his election in 1939\tthe  present
\nmathadhipathi  could  not acquire the right to\tpossess\t and
\nenjoy  or to recover properties which no longer belonged  to
\nthe math.\n<\/p>\n
In  Jagadindra Nath Roy’s case(1), the dispossession of\t the
\nidol’s lands took place in April, 1876.\t The only shebait of
\nthe  idol was then a minor, and he sued for recovery of\t the
\nlands  in October. 1889 within three years of his  attaining
\nmajority.  The Privy Council held that the plaintiff being a
\nminor  at the commencement of the period of  limitation\t was
\nentitled  to  the benefit of s. 7 of the  Indian  Limitation
\nAct,  1877  (Act XV of 1877) corresponding to s.  6  of\t the
\nIndian\tLimitation Act 1908, and was entitled  to  institute
\nthe  suit  within  three years of his coming  of  age.\tThis
\ndecision  created an anomaly, for, as pointed out  by  Page,
\nJ.in Administrator-General of Bengal v. Balkissen  Misser(2)
\nat  p.958,  in\tgiving the benefit of s.  7  of\t the  Indian
\nLimitation  Act,1877  to  the  shebait,\t the  Privy  Council
\nproceeded  on  the  footing  that  the\tright  to  sue\t for
\npossession  is to be divorced from the proprietary right  to
\nthe property which is vested in the idol.  We do not express
\nany  opinion  one  way or the other on\tthe  correctness  of
\nJagadindra  Nath  Roy’s case(1).  For the purposes  of\tthis
\ncase,  it is sufficient to say that we are not\tinclined  to
\nextend\tthe  principle of that case.  In that case,  at\t the
\ncommencement of the period of limitation there was a shebait
\nin  existence entitled to sue on behalf of the idol, and  on
\nthe institution of the suit he successfully claimed that  as
\nthe  person entitled to institute the suit at the time\tfrom
\nwhich the period is to be reckoned he should get the benefit
\nof  s. 7 of the Indian Limitation Act 1877.  In the  present
\ncase,  there was no mathadhipathi in existence in 1915\twhen
\nlimitation  commenced to run.  Nor is there any question  of
\nthe  minority of a mathadhipathi entitled to sue in 1915  or
\nof applying s. 6 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908.
\nFor  these reasons, we hold that the time under Art. 144  of
\nthe Indian Limitation Act, 1908 commenced to run in 1915  on
\nthe death of the, mathadhipathi, who granted the lease,\t and
\nthe  absence  of a legally appointed mathadhipathi  did\t not
\nprevent the running of time under Art. 144.  We,  therefore,
\nagree
\n(2)  (1924) I.L.R. 51 Cal. 953.\n<\/p>\n
(1)   (1904) I.L.R. 32 Cal. 129.\n<\/p>\n
Sup. C. 1\/65-15
\n914<\/span>
\nwith  the answer given by the majority of the Judges to\t the
\nthird question referred to the Full Bench of the Madras High
\nCourt in Venkateswara’s case() at pp. 614-615, 633-634.\t  We
\nexpress\t no opinion on the interpretation of Art.  134-B  of
\nthe  Indian  Limitation Act, 1908 or Art. 96 of\t the  Indian
\nLimitation   Act,  1963.   Under  Art.\t96  of\tthe   Indian
\nLimitation  Act, 1963, the starting point of  limitation  in
\nsuch  a\t case would be the date of the\tappointment  of\t the
\nplaintiff  as  manager of the endowment,  but  this  Article
\ncannot be considered to be a legislative recognition of\t the
\nlaw existing before 1929.\n<\/p>\n
We hold that by the operation of Art. 144 read with S. 28 of
\nthe Indian Limitation Act, 1908 the title of the math to the
\nsuit  lands became extinguished in 1927, and  the  plaintiff
\nacquired  title to the lands by prescription.  He  continued
\nin possession of the lands until January, 1950.\t It has been
\nfound  that  in\t January,  1950\t he  voluntarily   delivered
\npossession  of the lands to the math, but such\tdelivery  of
\npossession did not transfer any title to the math.  The suit
\nwas instituted in 1954 and is-well within time.
\nIn the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(1) 1. L. R. 1941 Mad. 599
\n915<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And … vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal … on 23 September, 1965 Equivalent citations: 1966 AIR 1603, 1966 SCR (1) 908 Author: R Bachawat Bench: Bachawat, R.S. PETITIONER: SRI SARANGADEVAR PERIA MATAM AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: RAMASWAMY GOUNDER (DEAD) BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23\/09\/1965 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126850","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And ... vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal ... on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And ... vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal ... on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-06T12:31:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And … vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal … on 23 September, 1965\",\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-06T12:31:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965\"},\"wordCount\":2393,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965\",\"name\":\"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And ... vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal ... on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-06T12:31:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And … vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal … on 23 September, 1965\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And ... vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal ... on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And ... vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal ... on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-06T12:31:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And … vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal … on 23 September, 1965","datePublished":"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-06T12:31:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965"},"wordCount":2393,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965","name":"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And ... vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal ... on 23 September, 1965 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1965-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-06T12:31:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-sarangadevar-peria-matam-and-vs-ramaswamy-gounder-dead-by-legal-on-23-september-1965#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Sarangadevar Peria Matam And … vs Ramaswamy Gounder (Dead) By Legal … on 23 September, 1965"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126850","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=126850"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126850\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126850"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126850"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126850"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}