Varadachariar, J.

1. (After setting out facts as above and after discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded.) We agree with the finding of the lower Court that the hundi was cashed by the defendant who had agreed to undertake the obligation cast upon him as per the terms of the arrangement alleged in para. 6 of the plaint. The only other question argued before us was the plea of limitation. The lower Court has held that the suit is covered by Section 10, Lim. Act, and there is accordingly no bar of limitation. In the view that the payment to Vellayappa himself of any balance that might remain after payment of his creditors was part of the arrangement under which the hundi was issued to the defendant, there can be little difficulty in holding that Section 10, Lim. Act, covers the present suit. The section requires that the property should have become vested in the defendant in trust for a specific purpose. As the trust in the present case relates to money, the issue of the hundi in favour of the defendant was sufficient to vest the amount in him, and there is no doubt that a trust for the payment of the debts of Vellayappa and of the balance to Vellayappa himself will co