Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (June 6, 1905) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack (September 30, 1902) and dismissing the appellants suit. The suit was brought on July 17, 1901, by the mahan and shebait of the Sadabrata math or temple of the Thakur Sri Gopal Jiu at Bhadrak, in the district of Balasore, to eject the respondent from certain properties at Bibisarai, movable and immovable, set forth in the schedule to the plaint, and alleged by the plaintiff to be part of the debottar and marfatdari property of the idol, and as such dedicated to and required for the purposes of its worship and service. It was further alleged by the plaintiff that Sriram Das, his predecessor, mahant and shebait of the Thakur and math at Bhadrak, on succeeding to the office of mahant, had in the course of a dispute and litigation with the defendant, who claimed to be the successor to the said office, entered into an agreement with the defendant whereby the said properties were to be held by the defendant as an adhikari or manager for purposes set forth in the ikrarnama executed by the said parties on November 3, 1874, and subordinate to the said Bhadrak math. And he sub mitted that the properties in dispute, being part of the debottar property of the said Thakur, could not be validly assigned or dealt with by the mahant Sriram Das so as to affect the right of the Thakur, and that in any event no such arrangement could be operative beyond the lifetime of Sriram Das, and that upon his death the ikrarnama and the arrangements thereunder lapsed and became ineffective. He also alleged that the defendant was unfit for the post of an adhikari, and that owing to his habit of misappropriating the profits of the debottar properties he was not fitted to be in possession of them. His cause of action was stated to have accrued upon the death of his predecessor, Mahant Sriram Das, on the 5th Sraban, 1296, corresponding with July 18, 1889. The plaint prayed, inter alia, for a declara tion that the disputed property was debottar as alleged, and that the ikrarnama was illegal and invalid, and for possession of the said property with mesne profits. The plaint prayed, inter alia, for a declara tion that the disputed property was debottar as alleged, and that the ikrarnama was illegal and invalid, and for possession of the said property with mesne profits. The respondent set up limitation as his defence, claiming that neither the plaintiff nor his predecessor had been in possession of the disputed property within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit. He denied that the plaintiffs predecessor had died on the 5th Sraban, 1296 (July 18, 1889), as alleged, and stated that he had been in adverse possession of the properties in suit from November 3, 1874, the date of the said ikrarnama, and that an absolute right had accrued to him, extinguishing the alleged rights of the plaintiff and his predecessor, Mahant Sriram Das. The Subordinate Judge found that Sriram Das died on July 18, 1889, and that therefore the suit was not barred by limitation. As to the third issue, he found that the defendant had obtained possession under the ikrarnama, and that the onus lay upon him to shew how and when that possession became adverse to the mahant of the Bhadrak math, and that he had not so shewn. He held that there was no evidence of adverse possession. He gave the plaintiff a decree for possession of the disputed properties with mesne profits from the date of the suit, with costs. The High Court reversed this decree. The material passage of its judgment is as follows — " If the plaintiff claims to be the successor of Sriram Das, he certainly cannot recover the Bibisarai math, for the ikrarnama provides that neither Sriram Das nor any of his heirs shall ever disturb the possession of the defendant in the Bibisarai math. On the other hand, if the plaintiff sues merely as the trustee of the idol, to whom the two maths in strict legal intendment belong, he is met by the plea of the defendants adverse possession of twenty-seven years. We think there can be no doubt that the defendant held the disputed math adversely for more than twelve years even before the death of Sriram Das. This is apparent from Exhibits 10, 11, and 12, in which the defendant claimed in February, 1877, to hold the math by right of inheritance, though he admitted that possession was made over to him under the ikrarnama of 1874. This is apparent from Exhibits 10, 11, and 12, in which the defendant claimed in February, 1877, to hold the math by right of inheritance, though he admitted that possession was made over to him under the ikrarnama of 1874. Sriram Das died in July, 1889, more than twelve years after the above claim. Furthermore, it would appear from the Privy Council decision in the case of Gnanasambanda Pandara v. Vein Pandaram(( 1899) L. R. 27 Ind. Ap. 69; I. L. R. 23 Madr. 271), that the plaintiff and his preceding shebaits are not in the position of the holders of life estates, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to contend that his right to sue accrued to him only on the death of Sriram Das, and that the possession of the defendant, which may have been adverse to Sriram Das, was not adverse to him. The decision of the Privy Council above alluded to is of higher authority than the ruling of this Court in Arrutth Misser v. Juggurnath (( 1872) 18 S. W. R. 439.), on which the Subordinate Judge relies. " Moreover, this Court in a comparatively recent case, Nilmoni Singh v. Jagabandhu Roy (( 1896) I. L. R. 23 Calc. 536.), has affirmed the principle Laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the decision above referred to, and has held that each succeeding manager or shebait of an idol does not get a fresh start, as far as the question of limitation is concerned, on the ground of his not deriving title from any previous manager. The ruling in this case is further direct authority for holding that the possession of the defendant has been all along adverse, and bars the plaintiffs claim, and the decision in Bejoy Chunder Banerjee v. Kally Prosonno Mookerjee (( 1878) I. L. R. 4 Calc. 327.) also supports this view." A.M. Dunne, for the appellant, contended that the suit was not barred. The title to the properties was vested in the Thakur as debottar estate. Sriram Das as mahant was simply a manager thereof and had no title which he could validly assign. The terms of the ikrarnama did not purport to assign title or to confer on the respondent any rights beyond those of a manager of the debottar properties of the idol. Sriram Das as mahant was simply a manager thereof and had no title which he could validly assign. The terms of the ikrarnama did not purport to assign title or to confer on the respondent any rights beyond those of a manager of the debottar properties of the idol. The right so granted and the possession which followed were merely for the purposes of management subordinate to Sriram, and did not endure beyond the life of Sriram. There was no evidence of possession by way of title, adverse to the true owner, or unaffected by a trust in his favour with the duty of management. The onus was upon the respondent to shew how and when possession under the ikrarnama became adverse to the idol and to the appellant. Reference was made to Gnanasambandhu Pandara v. Velu Pandaram (L. R. 27 Ind. Ap. 69,) and Nilmoni Singh v. Jagabandhu Roy. (I. L. R. 23 Calc. 536.) The respondent did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR ARTHUR WILSON. This is an appeal from a decision of the High Court of Calcutta, dated June 6, 1905, which overruled that of the Subordinate Judge of Cuttack, dated September 30, 1902. The suit out of which the appeal arises was filed in the last-mentioned Court by the plaintiff appellant in his character as mahant of the math or temple of a Hindu deity at Bhadrak, in Balasore, and the object of the suit was to recover possession of certain properties situate at Bibisarai, in Jaipur, the suit being based upon the allegation that the properties were debottar property, dedicated to the worship and service of the plaintiffs Thakur, and held by the defendant as an adhikari in charge of what was said to be a subordinate math of Bibisarai. The first Court decided in favour of the plaintiff. That decision was reversed on appeal by the High Court on the ground that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation. Their Lordships are of opinion that the learned judges of the High Court were right. There is now no dispute as to any question strictly of fact. The former mahant was in possession of both maths and of the property annexed to them. He died leaving two chelas, between whom a controversy arose as to the right of succession to the maths and the property annexed to them. There is now no dispute as to any question strictly of fact. The former mahant was in possession of both maths and of the property annexed to them. He died leaving two chelas, between whom a controversy arose as to the right of succession to the maths and the property annexed to them. That controversy was settled by an arrangement embodied for the present purpose in an ikrarnama dated November 3, 1874, executed by Sriram Das, senior chela, in favour of the junior chela, described as Adhikari Lakhan Das, by which the math at Bhadrak was allotted in perpetuity to the elder chela and his successors, while the math at Bibisarai and the properties annexed to it were allotted to the younger chela and his successors, for the purposes connected with his math, subject to an annual payment of Rs.15 towards the expenses of the Bhadrak math. The parties to the present suit stand in the place of the elder and younger chelas respectively. The learned judges of the High Court have rightly held that in point of law the property dealt with by the ikrarnama was prior to its date to be regarded as vested not in the mahant but in the legal entity, the idol, the mahant being only his representative and manager. And it follows from this that the learned judges were further right in holding that from the date of the ikrarnama the possession of the junior chela, by virtue of the terms of that ikrarnama, was adverse to the right of the idol and of the senior chela, as representing that idol, and that therefore the present suit was barred by limitation. For these reasons their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. As the respondent has not appeared upon the hearing of the appeal, there will be no order as to costs.