Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant. 2. The appellant/plaintiff claiming that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff-Adheenam had filed the Suit for declaration, possession and for mesne profits alleging, that the alienation made by the then Madadhipathi is not binding upon the plaintiff and therefore, the defendants, who are in occupation of the property are bound to deliver possession after demolishing the existing superstructure, if any. 3. The 4th defendant alone contested the case, while the other defendants remained ex parte. The 4th defendant had opposed the claim of the plaintiff on the grounds, that the suit property i.e. the land was gifted to the then Madadhipathi by name Gnanaprakasa Desika Swarnigal by one Singaravelu Mudaliar personally, who was the owner of the property on 24.10.1900, that the said Gananaprakasa Desika Swamigal, who was enjoying the property in his individual right, had leased the property for 21 years in favour of one Gnanambal Ammal on 14.5.1937, that thereafter on 23.12.1941, for necessity, the suit property was sold by Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal to her, that pursuant to the lease and sale, Gnanambal Animal was enjoying the property till 2.1.1942, putting up superstructure also, that on 2.1.1942 Gnanambal Ammal had sold the property to one Udaya Singh, who had enjoyed the property, mortgaging the same also, who in turn sold the property to the 4th defendant by name Ram Singh on 19.9.1981, that from the year 1979 and even prior to that, the 4th defendant and his predecessors-in-interest had been enjoying the suit property, thereby acquired title by adverse possession also, that since the property belonged to Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal in his individual capacity, the sale deed executed by him cannot be challenged, that the suit is barred by limitation, since Section 109 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act (hereinafter called 'the Act) is not applicable and that the plaintiff by his conduct and acquiescence is estopped from claiming title or possession of the suit property. 4. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Trial Court, framing as many as 8 issues, went on trial and during the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, one Rathinasabapathy has been examined as P.W.1 seeking aid from Exs. A-1 to A-15, which evidence is sought to be nullified by producing Exs. 4. On the basis of the said pleadings, the Trial Court, framing as many as 8 issues, went on trial and during the trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, one Rathinasabapathy has been examined as P.W.1 seeking aid from Exs. A-1 to A-15, which evidence is sought to be nullified by producing Exs. B-1 to B13, in addition to the examination of the 4th defendant as D.W. 1. 5. The learned trial Judge, scanning and evaluating the above materials, had come to the conclusion, that the suit property never belonged to the plaintiff Adheenam, whereas it belonged to Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal in his individual capacity, that the recitals in Exs.A-1 to A-3 though would indicate that the property belonged to the plaintiff Adheenam, the same is not acceptable, since the suit property does not come within the meaning of Section 6(17) of the Act, applying Section 109 of the Act or any other provisions of the Act is not legally sound, that as far as the site is concerned, the 4th defendant had prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation and that the Suit is also barred by estoppel and acquiescence. On the basis of the above findings reached, the suit came to be dismissed on 15.12.1987, which was under challenge before the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 514/1989. 6. The learned 5th Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reassessing the materials, had taken the positive stand, that the property was not gifted under Ex.B-1 to the Adheenam and the recitals in the subsequent documents would not nullify the effect of Ex.B-1, that there is no material that the Adheenam was established as religious one, which owned the suit property, that in view of this finding, the provisions of the Act, including Section 109 of the Act is not applicable, that the finding of the Trial Court that the 4th defendant and his predecessors in interest prescribed title by adverse possession is erroneous, that the finding of the lower Court that the suit, is barred by estoppel and acquiescence is not based on evidence and that in view of the finding the suit property was owned by Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal in his individual capacity, the subsequent alienation is valid and in this view, the plaintiff is neither entitled to declaration, nor possession nor profits. On the said findings, the Appeal came to be dismissed on 23.7.1992, which is under challenge in this Second Appeal. 7. This Court, despite the fact that there is concurrent finding regarding the title, in view of the non-appreciation of the recitals in the documents, in a proper perspective manner, felt that there are substantial questions of law, which have to be decided and in this view., the following substantial questions of law are framed for determination: (1) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the suit property belongs to the then Madathipathy personally without properly considering the terms of the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-3? (2) Whether the Courts below are correct in holding that the suit property belongs to the then Madathipathi personally when there is specific term in Ex.A-1 that the suit property was leased out to Tmt. Gnanambal Ammal subject to the sanction of the competent authority under the provisions of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act? (3) Whether the Courts below erred in ignoring the specific terms in Exs.A­1 to A-3 that in the sale agreement in favour of Tint. Gnanambal, it has been categorically stated that the suit property belongs to the appellant­ Mutt and the defendants are estopped from denying the said title? 8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. N. Mala and the learned counsel for the 4th respondent, Mr. M.S. Umapathi. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit, that both the Courts below have committed error, leading to perverse finding in appreciating Exs.A-1 to A-3, that too giving explanation of its own, when the parties have not offered. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that Ex.B-1 gift deed was only in favour of Adheenam, which could be seen from the subsequent documents, wherein Adheenam and the defendant's predecessors in interest themselves have admitted the title of the suit property in favour of the appellant Adheenam, but unfortunately, both the Courts below have committed a glaring mistake and if it is allowed to exist, that will lead to injustice and therefore, interference of this Court is essential, since substantial question of law is involved in interpreting the documents also. It is further submitted on behalf of the appellant, that in view of the fact that the property was gifted to appellant-Adheenam, the H.R. & C.E. Act is applicable throughout and the provisions of the said Act have to be applied strictly. If the provisions of the H.R. & C.E. Act is made applicable, the alienation or encumbrance made by the then Adheenam is hit by the provisions of Act and in this view, the lease deed and sale deed in favour of Gnanambal Ammal are null and void, which should follow the subsequent alienation or encumbrance by Gnanambal Ammal is bad and this being the position, the claim of the 4th defendant/respondent is unsustainable. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant urged further that the Limitation Act is not applicable to the property owned by the Religious Institution and therefore, the Trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion, that the 4th defendant and his predecessors in interest have prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession, which was rightly set aside by the first Appellate Court. On the above lines, inviting my attention to the relevant provisions of the Act, as well as the recitals found in the documents, the learned counsel would submit that this is a fit case, where the interference of this Court is absolutely unavoidable, though one of the findings is concurrent and many of the findings are otherwise. 11. Mr. T. Viswanatha Rao, the learned counsel appearing for the 4th defendant/respondent would submit that the property was gifted by the original owner only to the individual viz., Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal, not to Adheenam, though he was the Adeenakartha which fact was properly considered by both the Courts below concurrently, not warranting any interference. The further submissions are that the 4th defendant and his predecessors in interest have prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession and that the plaintiff is estopped from claiming title to the suit property by acquiescence. 12. In order to find out the validity of the alienation or encumbrance by Sree Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal, first it is to be settled whether the property was gifted to him in the personal capacity or the property was gifted to the Adheenam represented by Sree Gnanaprakasa Deskia Swamigal. 13. Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to one Singaravelu Mudaliar. 12. In order to find out the validity of the alienation or encumbrance by Sree Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal, first it is to be settled whether the property was gifted to him in the personal capacity or the property was gifted to the Adheenam represented by Sree Gnanaprakasa Deskia Swamigal. 13. Admittedly, the suit property originally belonged to one Singaravelu Mudaliar. On 24.10.1900, the said Singaravelu Mudaliar gifted the property in favour of Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal, who was the head of Sri Nagaram. Kanchipurarn Meikanda Sivachariar Mutt, which is the plaintiff Adheenam at present. Though the First Appellate Court has strained itself to go in detail about the creation of the Adheenam, etc., I think it is unnecessary as it is not the case of anybody, that there was no Adheenam as described in the plaint and the said Adheenam was not headed by Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal. If we read the document with the Mutt name, it reflects that the gift was only for the benefit of the Adheenam and not to the individual. The proper person, who could speak about the acceptance of the gift either for himself or for the benefit of the Mutt/Adheenant, must be the person named in Ex.B-1 Viz., Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal. If it is established that Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal had recognised and accepted that the gift was in favour of Adheenam, not to individual, that the property was treated as that of the Adheenam property and that the purchaser also accepted the same as Adheenam Property, then taking into account the availability of the recitals in the subsequent documents, it is to be construed that Ex.B-1 gift was made only to Adheenam for its benefit, not to individual. If the gift was made to the individual and the individual by name Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal had been enjoying the property without reference to the Mutt, then when the property was sold, he should have handed over the original documents also to the purchaser Gnanambal Ammal. Admittedly, the original of the gift deed is produced by the present Adheenam, exhibited as Ex.B-1 and the custody of the original document, production of the same also would suggest, that the property was gifted by a Philanthropist only in favour of the Adheenam, not to the individual. Admittedly, the original of the gift deed is produced by the present Adheenam, exhibited as Ex.B-1 and the custody of the original document, production of the same also would suggest, that the property was gifted by a Philanthropist only in favour of the Adheenam, not to the individual. The then Adheenam Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal also recognised the same, and accepted, the title of Adheenam which could be seen from the recitals available in the lease deed (Ex.A-1) and the sale deed (Ex.A3), which are simply ignored by both the Courts, in my opinion, perversely. When the parties themselves have not offered any explanation, the recitals available in the old document should be given effect to and unfortunately, in appreciating the recitals and to give interpretation to Ex.B-1, in my considered opinion, both the Courts have committed blunder and that should be set aside. 14. Ex.A-I is the registration copy of the lease deed dated 14.5.1937. At that time, there was no dispute between the parties. This being the position, Sri Gnanaprakasa Desika Swamigal when leased out the property in favour of Gnanambal Ammal, specific recitals are made which reads: TAMIL thereby meaning that the property belongs to the Mutt/Adheenam. This recital was accepted by the lessor and lessee, no quarrel. 15. In the same manner, when the property was alienated on 22.12.1941, as seen from Ex.A-3, Sri Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal himself had stated TAMIL Thus, it is seen, the vendor under the original of Ex.A3, not only confirmed that the property gifted under Ex.B-1, belongs to the Adheenarn, but also reiterated the recitals in Ex.A-1. Pursuant to the lease deed and sale deed alone, Gnanambal Animal took possession of the property admitting that the suit property belongs to Adheenam. Therefore, it is not open to Gnanambal Animal or the person claiming under Gnanambal Ammal to say that the property does not belong to Adheenam, whereas it belonged to Sree Gnanaprakasa Desiga Swamigal personally. Both the Courts below have not properly construed Exs.A-1, A-3 and B-1 and in this view, though the finding is concurrent, it is not based upon proper application of law regarding the construction of documents, and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. Both the Courts below have not properly construed Exs.A-1, A-3 and B-1 and in this view, though the finding is concurrent, it is not based upon proper application of law regarding the construction of documents, and therefore, it deserves to be set aside. Now having come to the conclusion that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff Adheenam, not belonged to Adheenakartha personally, we have to see what is the effect of the alienation or encumbrance by the then Adheenam. 16. By going through the lease deed Ex.A-1, I am unable to find any specific term in the document that the property was leased out to Gnanambal Ammal, subject to sanction of the competent authority, though there are recitals regarding the construction of the superstructure, how after expiry of the lease period that should be removed or by paying compensation it could be taken by the Mutt, etc. This being the position, the second substantial question of law framed may not be correct. However, in View of the fact that the lease is for the period of 21 years, it should be held invalid for the reasons which I am going to infra. 17. In view of my findings supra, that the property belongs to Mutt or Adheenam, the person, who is in management of the property has no right to alienate or lease the immovable property exceeding 5 years or has no right to encumber the property. Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu Act II/1927 prohibited alienation of immovable property belonging to religious institutions including lease, exceeding five years and in this view, the lease deed executed by the then Adheenarn in favour of Gnanambal Animal is void. The subsequent Act viz., Tamil Nadu Act 19/1951 also prohibits, under Section 35, alienation, including lease, exceeding five years. Section 76 of the Tamil Nadu Act II/1927 prohibited alienation of immovable property belonging to religious institutions including lease, exceeding five years and in this view, the lease deed executed by the then Adheenarn in favour of Gnanambal Animal is void. The subsequent Act viz., Tamil Nadu Act 19/1951 also prohibits, under Section 35, alienation, including lease, exceeding five years. Under Section 34 of the present Act, transfer of lands including lease or mortgage is prohibited, which reads: "Any exchange, sale or mortgage and any lease for a term exceeding five years of any immovable property, belonging to, or given or endowed for the purpose of, any religious institution shall be null and void unless it is sanctioned by the Commissioner as being necessary or beneficial to the institution." It is not the case of the defendant that previous lease in favour of Gnanambal Ammal or the sale in her favour was for the benefit of the institution or sanction has been obtained, etc. Admittedly no sanction has been obtained from the Commissioner also. Therefore, the alienation by the then Madathipathi should be construed as null and void. This being the position, the subsequent alienation by Gnanambal Animal and others also will not confer any right, though there are registered documents as seen from Exs.B- 12, 20 & 23. 18. The submission of the learned counsel for the 4th defendant, that the suit is bar-red by limitation and the defendant had prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession is also not available to him in view of Section 109 of the Act, which says the provisions of the Limitation Act 1963 shall not be made applicable to any suit for possession of immovable property of any religious institution or for possession of any interest in such property. While construing the gift, deed coupled with other documents as well considering the conduct of the then Adheenakartha, I have reached the conclusion that the property was endowed only for the benefit of the Mutt and therefore, it should come within the meaning of religious endowment or endowment as defined under Section 6(17) of the Act. The Mutt also should come within the meaning of religious institution and there cannot be any dispute. The Mutt also should come within the meaning of religious institution and there cannot be any dispute. Thus reaching the conclusion, if we read Section 109 which says: “Nothing contained in the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall apply to any suit for possession of immovable property belonging to any religious institution or for possession of any interest in such property. the irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the person who is in possession of the property cannot claim adverse possession and the suit also cannot be held as time barred, which is the law declared by this Court in Kalia Pillai v. Kathavee Ammal Dharmam (Charities), Thiruvannamalai, 2003 (3) MLJ 122 . wherein it is observed in para-18 that the person who is holding the property cannot claim adverse possession over the trust properties. Thus by efflux of time, the title of the Mutt/Adheenam extinguished, conferring title upon the 4th defendants is fallacious. Despite the fact, the 4th defendant and his predecessors in interest have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 22 years, they are bound to hand over the possession of the property to the plaintiff Mutt, since as rightly held by the First Appellate Court, the 4th defendant has not prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession. 19. As far as estoppel by acquiescence is concerned, the First Appellate Court has held it is not applicable, assigning reasons, which is well acceptable to me and I do not find any reason to take any other different view on this ground. In the light of the above discussion, the above substantial questions of law are answered accordingly and the Appeal deserves acceptance. 20. The plaintiff though claims damage for use and occupation from 1983, there is no acceptable evidence. The 4th defendant and his predecessors in interest had purchased the property, invested heavily, put up superstructure and had the benefits of the building also. The plaintiff Mutt/ Adheenam, having fully known, has not taken any action for recovery. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to disallow the past mesne profits claimed at the rate of Rs.2180 ordering future damage alone for use and occupation as damages from the date of plaint, which shall be worked out under separate proceedings. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to disallow the past mesne profits claimed at the rate of Rs.2180 ordering future damage alone for use and occupation as damages from the date of plaint, which shall be worked out under separate proceedings. In the result, the Appeal is allowed setting aside the decrees and judgments of the Courts below decreeing O.S.No.1724/1984 for delivery and vacant possession after the removal of the superstructure, ordering future damages as said above, negativing the past damage, further directing the 4th defendant to pay the cost of the Appeal. For delivery of vacant possession, six months' time is granted.