A trustee cannot claim adverse possession against the temple, and the starting point of limitation for a suit by a temple trustee to recover temple property alienated by a previous trustee is the date of removal of the previous trustee.

( 1 ) THE sole question that arises for consideration in these second appeals is when does limitation start to run in case where a trustee alienates the property of the temple or the deity.

( 2 ) TO appreciate the point involved in these second appeals, it may be necessary to state the relevant facts. The plaintiff (appellant) laid three connected suits O. S. 1/59, O. S. 33/59 and O. S. 34/59 in the Court of the District Munsif, Gudivada for recovery of the temple lands which are in the possession of the defendants. The case of the plaintiff in all the three suits is that the lands in question belonged to the temple and the previous trustees described as Maikonda family were in possession of the suit lands of the temple on behalf of the temple and were utilising the net income derived from the lands for Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam and for other festivals concerning the temple. While acting as hereditary trustee the members of the Manikonda family some of whom are now defendants, alienated the properties to the defendants on the ground that the lands were their own private property. They were alienated under three sale deeds (1) Ext. B-6 dated 5-3-1942, (2) Ext. B-8 dated 29-3-45, (3) Ext. B-11 dated 31-8-42 The alienations are admitted by the defendants. But, their case is that the properties do not belong to the temple but were the private properties of the trustees in Manikonda people, and as such the temple is not entitled to recover possession of the property from them as the temple had no title to or possession of these lands. The defendants also raised the question that the suits are barred by limitation for the reason that their predecessors-in-title had perfected their title by adverse possession.

( 3 ) THE trial Court framed several issues the relevant issue being issue No. 3 whether the defendants perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession. " On a consideration of the evidence placed before the trial court, it found on the principal issues that the suit property was endowed to the temple, that the members of the Manikonda family were the hereditary trustees in possession and management of the properties on behalf of the temple, that they had no right to alienate the property and that the defendants had not perfected their title by adverse possession and therefore decreed the suits of the plaintiff. It is against this decree that the defendants preferred appeals and the Subordinate Judge allowed the appeals A. W. Nos. 22/61, 23/61 and 61/61 on the sole ground that the suits were barred by limitation as they were not filed within 12 years after the respective dates of alienation. The three suits were filed on 8-7-58 and the alienations in respect of the three properties in question concerning the three suits were on 5-3-42, 29-3-45 and 31-8-42 respectively.

( 4 ) THE plaintiff was appointed as the trustee by the Endowments Department on 10-4-57 and he laid these three suits on 8-7-58. Therefore, the question is whether these suits are time-barred as found by the lower Appellate Court having regard to the dates of alienation. It is not in dispute that the members of Manikonda family were the hereditary trustees managing the temple properties and utilising the income deprived from the properties for Dhoopa Deepa Naivedyam and for the festivals of the temple. Prior to the appointment of the plaintiff, the members of the Manikonda family were either the hereditary or de facto trustees and they ceased to act as trustees only with effect from 10-4-57 when the plaintiff took over charge as the trustees of the temple. The finding of both the Courts below is that the members of the Manikonda family were either dharmakartas or hereditary trustees of the temple till the plaintiff took over charge. The trial Court has also given a finding that"it is needless to say that a trustee, whether he is de son tort or a regular trustee or any person in management of endowed property, cannot prescribe hosti