Article 107 is attracted for suits for possession of a hereditary office. In Balakrishna Savalram v. Shri Dhyaneshwar Maharaj, (AIR 1959 SC 798), it has been held that before the Art. 107 can apply it is necessary to show that the plaintiff in the suit claims for the possession of an office which is hereditary and such claim is made against a person who has taken possession of the said hereditary office adversely to the plaintiff.
The shebaiti is hereditary office and such office comes within purview of the Art. 107.
A suit for possession against the de facto manager of the office of the shebait along with the rights of possession and management of the property would be governed by the Art. 107.
In Dharam v. Suraj, (AIR 1941 All. 1), it has been held that a suit to recover the hereditary office of the temple and for possession of the property of the temple attracts the Art. 107 and there is no distinction as regards limitation between a claim to an office and claim to the office of such hereditary office.
In Palani v. Kalipada, (54 CWN 960), it has been held that co- shebaits are co-owners of the shebaiti right and are co-shebait can claim interest of another under Art. 107 of such claim can be regarded as one to the share in the hereditary office.
In Ramavatar v. State, (AIR 1961 Pat. 203), it has been held that limitation commences from the date when the defendant takes possession of the office adversely to the person entitled to it and not when the plaintiff is entitled to the office.
In Jankinandan v. Koshalyanandan, (AIR 1961 Pat. 293), it has been held that if the right to the possession of a hereditary office is barred by limitation under the Art. 107, the right to the office itself would become extinguished in view of Section 27 of the Limitation Act.