Temple tenancy and adverse possession fail where public records prove endowment title and leasehold possession continues

Public records showed the deity as registered inamdar, so the suit lands were held to belong to the temple endowment. The 1851 sanad was not produced, and adverse inference, together with the proved mode of enjoyment, led to the conclusion that the arrangement was only a lease from year to year in return for daily supply of oil, not a permanent tenancy. A tenant could not acquire title by adverse possession while the tenancy continued, and the alleged hostile notice did not terminate the tenancy. The suit was therefore treated as timely, the plea of adverse possession and limitation failed, and possession was directed to be restored with inquiry into mesne profits.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the suit lands belonged to the deity; (ii) whether the 1851 sanad conferred a permanent tenancy or only a lease from year to year; (iii) whether the defendants acquired title by adverse possession or prescription and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the suit lands belonged to the deity.

Analysis: The village accounts, inam registers, resurvey and re-settlement records, and the title deed issued by the Inam Commissioner consistently showed the deity as the registered inamdar. The defendants' documents and unilateral recitals did not displace those public records, and the withholding of the sanad strengthened the inference against the defendants' claim of independent title.

Conclusion: The suit lands belonged to the deity.

Issue (ii): whether the 1851 sanad conferred a permanent tenancy or only a lease from year to year.

Analysis: The origin of the tenancy was known and depended upon the sanad itself. In the absence of the sanad, the Court drew an adverse presumption against the defendants. The long and continuous possession, coupled with supply of oil, was consistent with a tenancy, but not enough to establish a permanent tenancy against a Hindu religious endowment without proof of legal necessity. On the proved facts, the arrangement was treated as a lease from year to year in return for daily supply of oil.

Conclusion: The sanad created only a lease from year to year and not a permanent tenancy.

Issue (iii): whether the defendants acquired title by adverse possession or prescription and whether the suit was barred by limitation.

Analysis: A tenant cannot deny the landlord's title during the subsistence of the tenancy, nor acquire a permanent right by mere assertion of hostile title while continuing in possession as tenant. The alleged hostile notice did not terminate the tenancy or establish open, notorious adverse possession. Since the lease continued until terminated in 1949, possession before that date was not adverse, and the suit filed in 1954 was within time under the governing limitation provisions for a landlord's suit against a tenant.

Conclusion: The plea of adverse possession and limitation failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree below was set aside and possession was directed to be restored to the temple trustees, with an inquiry into mesne profits.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the origin of a tenancy under a grant to a religious endowment is known, permanent tenancy must be proved from the grant itself, and a tenant in lawful possession cannot acquire title by adverse possession merely by asserting hostility while the tenancy continues.

---