Section 10 of the Limitation Act applies to a suit filed by the present trustee of a temple against the Ex-trustee of a temple or his legal representatives for accounts on the ground of misappropriation, malfeasance or non-feasance.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of O. S. No. 305 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of eluru, a suit filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. of 1944 for rendition of accounts in respect of the management of the temples of Sri Janardanaswami and Sri Malleswaraswami of Chattaparru. The plaintiff is the present Managing Trustee of the said temples. The suit was filed for rendition of accounts in respect of the managing of the temples by Ex-Trustees Gutta Pichayya, Gutta Subramanyam and Guutta Venkatasubbamma, the 9th defendant. Defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Gutta Pichayya. Defendants 2 to 7 are the sons of Gutta Sitaramabrahman. The 8th defendant is Sitaramabrahmans brother. It was alleged in the plaint that Gutta Pichayya and the 9th defendant as guardian of sitaramabrahmam managed the said temples as trustees from 1901, that the 9th defendant acted as a trustee till sitaramabrahmam attained majority, that Pichayya and Sitaramabrahmam after he attained majority acted as trustees till the year 1938, that during the period of their management the trustees collected large sums of money, from the debtors of the temples and from the temple properties and misappropriated the same, that the trustees were guilty of acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, and non-fesance and that, therefore, they were liable to render accounts to the temples for the period of their management and to pay the amount due to the temples with interest.

( 2 ) THE defendants, inter alia, pleaded that they were not guiltyof any misappropriation, that the suit was barred bylimitation, and that S. 73, Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act, was a bar to the maintainability of the suit.

( 3 ) THE learned District Munsif held that the suit was barred by limitation against the 9th defendant, but was well within time against the other defendants. He also found that s. 73 was not a bar to the maintainability of the suit. In the result, he gave a preliminary decree for accounts with a direction that the Commissioner shall take an account of the management of the temples and the properties by Pichayya and Sitarambrahmam from 1901 to 1938. On appeal, the learned subordinate Judge took the same view on the two questions raised and dismissed the appeal. Hence the Second Appeal.

( 4 ) THE first question that arises in the Second Appeal is whether the suit against the legal representatives of the Ex-Trustees, Gutta Pichayya and Sitaramabrahman, was barred by limitatioin. The rlevant provisions of the Limitation Act relied upon at the bar may be extracted:"section 3: Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 25 (inclusive) every suit instituted, appeal preferred and application made after the period of limitation prescribed therfor by the first schedule shall be dismissed, although limitatioin has not been set up as a defence. ""section 10: Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, no suit against a person in whom property has been vested in trust for any specific purpose, or against his legal representatives or assigns (not being assigns for valuable consideration), for the purpose of following in his or their hands such property, or the proceeds thereof, or for an account of such property, or proceeds, shall be barred by any length of time. For the purpose of this section, any property comprised in a Hindu, Muhammadan or Buddhist religious or charitable endowment shall be eemed to be property vested in trust for a specific purpose and the manager of any such property shall be deemed to be the trustee thereof. " (Inserted by Act 1 of 1929 ). Article 98: To make good out of the Three The date of the trusteesgeneral estate of a deceasedyears. death, or, if the loss has nottrustee the loss occasioned then resulted, the date of theby a breach of trust. loss.

( 5 ) THE question is whether S. 10 or Art. 98 of the Limitation Act would govern a suit filed by the plresent trustee of a temple against the Extrustee of a temple or his l