Sale of trust property in Court sale.

The appellant in this appeal is the plaintiff in the suit out of which it arises. The suit was brought by the appellant against a number of defendants who are all respondents here for the main relief of recovery of possession of properties alleged to belong to a choultry. There were two schedules attached to the plaint. Schedule A contained the site and the building of the choultry founded by one Veerappa the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. Schedule B to the plaint contains a list of properties, all lands, endowed by this Veerappa for the maintenance and upkeep of the said choultry founded by him. Veerappa executed a gift deed in 1887 for the creation of this endowment and also provided by that deed for succession of managers for the institution. He indicated that he would be manager during his lifetime, and after him his son and sons heirs should manage the endowment, receive income from B Schedule lands and keep up the charity by maintaining the services to be performed therein. The alienations as a result of which the B Schedule properties went out of the hands of the trust can be classified under three heads: (1) alienations by Nachiyappa, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, between the years 1898 to 1907. It may be noticed here that Nachiyappa died only in 1919. The second class of alienations is covered by two Court sales in O.S. No. 1011 of 1901, D.M.C., Kulitalai, and O.S. No. 1251 of 1904 of the same Court. The third category of alienations are two sales by Veerappa, the father of the plaintiff, who was impleaded as the 38th defendant to the suit. It may be noticed here that he died during the pendency of the suit in the lower Court, and consequently, an amendment of the plaint was sought and the relief of recovery of possession of the properties alienated by Veerappa was added to the plaint.

It is common ground that all B Schedule properties are absolutely dedicated to the charity namely the said chatram, various pleas were taken by the defendant which it is unnecessary for the present purpose to detail. Out of the numerous issues framed in the suit the learned Subordinate Judge proceeded to consider issue 10 and additional issue 1 as preliminary issues. These issues read as under: -

"Issue 10: Whether the suit is barred by limitation for all or any of the reasons set forth in the written statements: what is the correct age of the plaintiff?

Additional issue 1: Whether the claim for possession is barred by limitation?"

Reading both these issues it will be seen that in effect the suit was resisted on the ground that the claim for recovery of possession was barred by limitation. The learned Subordinate Judge considered that the claim for recovery of possession of the lands contained in B Schedule was barred by limitation because in respect of alienations by the grandfather Nachiyappa who died in 1919, suits to set aside such alienations ought to have been instituted within 12 years from the date of the alienation itself, and the last such alienation being in 1907, by the time of the death of Nachiyappa, all such suits would have become barred. In the case of alienations which were the result of Court sale he followed the same rule, and held that the suit was barred by limitation because the claim to recover such property became barred 12 years after the alienee or purchaser in Court sale took possession. In respect of the alienations made by Veerappa the father of the appellant, the learned Judge held that since Veerappa himself had lost his right to file the suit to recover the properties the successor was barred.

Mr. Ramaswami Ayyangar counsel for appellant was on very firm ground when he attacked the last finding of the learned Judge namely the alienations made by the 38th defendant (father of the appellant). Under Article 134-B of the Limitation Act time begins to run to recover possession of immoveable property alienated by a previous manager of a Hindu, Mohamedan or Buddhist religi