The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Will and the application of S.29 of the Travancore Limitation Act in determining the creation of a Trust and the limitation period for recovery of property.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. The suit was for recovery of the plaint schedule property, and alternatively for a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are Trust properties. The plaintiff further requested the court to frame a scheme for the proper management and utilisation of the income of the plaint schedule property on the basis that it is Trust property.

2. The plaint reveals, that the suit property originally belonged to Ranched Das Khathsee. Ranched Das Khathsee is the grand-father of the plaintiff. Ranched Das Khathsee died in February 1920. Some of the properties of Ranched Das Khathsee came into the possession of the plaintiff's father Damodar Ranched Das under a will of Ranched Das Khathsee. Damodar Ranched Das has three sons, plaintiff is one of the sons. Damodar Ranched Das died on 2-1-1962. The two brothers of plaintiff died in 1967. The will of Ranched Das Khathsee is exhibited in the suit as Ext. A-1. It is dated 26-7-1095. The plaint property is an item of property included in the will Ext. A-1. According to the plaintiff this item was set apart by plaintiff's grand-father for the purpose of certain charities to be done by plaintiff's father. The plaintiff came to know of this Will only very late. By the time the plaintiff came to know about this will, the property in question was sold by the plaintiff's father to the father of defendants 1 to 3. The sale was on 27-5-1100. The sale deed is Ext. A2. The case of the plaintiff is that this sale deed Ext. 2 is invalid in so far as the properties sold under Ext. A2 are Trust properties and plaintiff's father had no right to alienate the property. On these facts the plaintiff wants recovery of the property alternatively a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are Trust properties and a declaration that the sale deed Ext. A2 is invalid.

3. The suit was filed on 12-7-1968. The plaintiff explained the inordinate delay in filing the suit by saying that he came to know about the will only somewhere about 13-7-1965, the date on which the plaintiff got the copy of the Will. He came to know about the fraud in the matter of the sale of property only after perusing the will and making enquiries. As stated earlier the plaintiff filed the suit only on 12-7-1968.

4. Defendants 1 and 3 in their written statement contended that the sale deed is perfectly valid. They submitted that there was absolutely no fraud or collusion as stated in the plaint in respect of the sale. It was a bona fide purchase made by their father. Their father purchased the property by paying proper consideration. Their father paid the full consideration for the property and got exclusive possession of the property. After the death of their father, they are in possession and enjoyment of the properties. The suit has been filed to coerce the defendants to pay some money to the plaintiff. There is absolutely no bona fides on the part of the plaintiff in filing the suit. The statement that the plaintiff came to know about the Will only very late is not a true and correct statement. The defendants contended that the suit is barred by limitation.

5. The defendants also submitted that the suit property is not a Trust property. The recitals in the will, will convince the court that the property is not at all impressed with any obligation of Trust. On these facts the defendants wanted the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

6. The trial court held after an evaluation of evidence that Ext. A-1 will did not create a Trust in respect of the suit property. The sale deed was found to be valid. The court also held that the suit was barred by limitation. On the above findings the trial court dismissed the suit. Now the plaintiff appeals before this court.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in regard to 'B' Schedule properties in Ext. A-1, which is the suit property there is a clear intention on the part of the testator to create a trust for certain charitable purposes.