Madhavan Nair, J.

1. A.S. Nos. 75 and 76 of 1927.-Both these appeals arise out of O.S. No. 2 of 1924 instituted by the plaintiffs, described as the mullas or trustees of a Muhammadan mosque at Paramathi. The suit is for the recovery of two items of property said to have been improperly alienated by the previous trustees. Appeal No. 75, in which the 1st defendant is the appellant, relates to item 1, the alienation of which was effected in his favour under three sale deeds, Exs. D.D (1) and D (2), dated 17th February, 1901, 19th April, 1901 and 3rd May, 1901, respectively. Item 2 was alienated in favour of the 2nd defendant, the appellant in A.S. No. 76, under two documents, Exs. E and E (1), dated 7th October, 1900 and 19th April, 1901, respectively. The present suit was instituted on 9th January, 1924. The main question in these appeals is whether the suit is barred by limitation under Article 134 or Article 144 of the Limitation Act. Article 134 specifies 12 years as the period of limitation for a suit "to recover possession of immovable property conveyed or bequeathed in trust or mortgaged and afterwards transferred by the trustee or mortgagee for a valuable consideration" and the limitation period commences from the "date of the transfer". Article 144 specifies 12 years as the period of limitation "for possession of immovable property or any interest therein not hereby otherwise specially provided for" and the period commences from the date "when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse to the plaintiff". The learned Judge held that the suit is not barred by limitation and decreed the plaintiffs suit. The question of limitation is common to both the appeals. In Appeal No. 76 some subsidiary points also arise for consideration. We will, therefore, deal with these appeals separately.

A.S. No. 75 of 1927.--In considering which of the two Articles mentioned above applies to suits of this nature, it will be necessary, as may be seen from decided cases, first" to consider the essential nature of the trust. But in this appeal the question of limitation may be disposed of on another consideration, though the nature of the trust will have to be inquired into, in the connected appeal, and what is stated in it on that question will well apply to this appeal also. Though the sales under Exhibits D and D (1) took place in 1901 according to the documents, it is admitted that the portions of item 1 dealt with under the documents were under prior encumbrances and possession of the items was obtained by the 1st defendant only in 1914. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court in Seeti Kutti v. Kunhi Pathumma I.L.R. (1917) Mad. 1040 : 33 M.L.J. 320 that Article 134 of the Limitation Act does not apply to a transfer from a trustee or mortgagee under which possession is not taken by the transferee. . It follows therefore with respect to these alienations that the suit cannot be said to be barred either under Art 134 or under Article 144 also as ft has been instituted before the expiry of 12 years from 1914. With regard to the alienation under Exhibit D (2), the learned Advocate-General says that possession was transferred on the date of the deed, 3rd May, 1901. The respondents contend that in the case of this alienation also possession was not transferred on the date of the sale deed but was transferred only in 1914 as in the case of the other alienations. The sale of this item was also subject to an encumbrance as may be seen from the document. The sale deed no doubt says that the transferee was put in possession. Whether the prior encumbrance was a simple mortgage or a usufructuary mortgage, there is, we think, sufficient evidence in the case to show that possession with regard to this item was not obtained by the alienee before 1914. Exhibit I is the plaint "in O.S. No. 45 of 1914, the scheme suit, by the decree in which predecessors of the present plaintiffs were removed and the present plaintiffs appointed. The present