Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. There are two questions raised in this appeal. The main question is whether certain immovable property has been dedicated absolutely for religious purposes or only made subject to a charge. The second question is whether the suit out of which the appeal arises is barred by the law of limitation. The plaintiffs in the suit were the first and second respondents, both of whom were minors at the time of the institution of the suit on the 23rd April, 1934. The first respondent attained majority soon after the plaint was filed. The grandfather of the first and second respondents one Munnalur Narasimhalu Chetti, was a resident of Madras and possessed three lots of immovable property within the City, namely, a house known as Nos. 101 and 102 in the Devaraja Mudali Street, seven houses and shops known as Nos. 133 to 139 in the same street, and a garden known as Nos. 27 and 28, Mundakanniamman Temple Street. The suit was filed to recover possession of the property known as Nos. 101 and 102 in Devaraja Mudali Street. It was the respondents case that this property was dedicated by their grandfather in 1890 to the deity Sri Tholasingaperumal Swami of th