Varadachariar, J.

1. The defendant was the trustee of a temple and the plaintiffs succeeded him in January 1922. They filed this suit in 1923 to recover from the defendant a certain sum of money which be had taken from the temple funds for the expenses of a. litigation, to remove him from the trusteeship and have a scheme framed. Both the lower Courts have given the plaintiff a decree for the amount claimed. Mr. B, Sitarama Rao (for the appellant) contends that the claim must be held to be barred by limitation as it cannot be held to fall under Section 10, Lim. Act, in view of the observations of the Privy Council in Vidya Varuthi v. Baluswami Aiyar 1922 P.C. 123 that in the case of these temples it cannot be said that there is any property vested in the trustee in the English sense. It seems to me unnecessary to deal with that contention though there are one or two observations in the lower Courts judgment which rest upon the basis of the applicability of Section 10. As the lower Court points out the defendant was the trustee of the temple till January 1922, and no cause of action accrued to any body else as long as he continued to be the trustee.

2. The plaintiffs have file