Horwill, J.

1. The appellant sued as trustee for recovery of trust property alienated to the respondent. The first Court dismissed the suit, holding that the appellant had failed to prove that he was a de jure trustee and that he could not succeed merely as a de facto trustee. The lower appellate Court substantially agreed with the District Munsif; but held that if the appellant was a de facto trustee, he could be given a declaratory decree that the alienation was not binding on the institution. The lower appellate Court, however, refused a decree for possession. Hence this appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge in holding that the appellant . was not entitled to possession as a de facto trustee purported to follow Vedakannu Nadar v. Singikulam Annadana Chatram A.I.R. 1938 Mad. 982. a decision in which a Bench of this Court held that a de facto trustee was a trustee de son tort and was in no better position than a trespasser. Mr. Sundaralingam argues that this decision is wrong; because the Privy Council has twice held that a person who holds an office can sue, even though he may not have legal title to the office. The earlier case was Ramacharan Das v. Naurangilal. There, up