The possession of the properties cannot be dissociated from the possession of the office and independently dealt with, and adverse possession can lead to prescriptive title, justifying the dismissal of the suit.

Varadachariar, J.

1. Appellants as representing the five pattraigars or groups of inhabitants of their village, sued to recover possession of the village temples and the properties stated to be their endowments. The suit was filed in February 1920, and the plaint stated that defendant 1 had been in unlawful managemeut and possession from December 1911, the date of his fathers death. It is common ground that the father of the defendants, one Aswatha Ayyar, was in possassion and management from 1890 up to his death in December 1911; but the plaintiffs claim that Aswatha Ayyar was in possession only as their nominees. Defendant 1 denied that the plaintiffs had any right to the management of the suit temples or their properties and set up title in Aswatha Ayyar, either in accordance with the custom of the institution or1 by prescription. In the alternative he also contended that he himself, having been in possession from December 1911 had acquired a title by prescription or that, at any rate, the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation. On the merits-with reference to the alleged claim of the plaintiffs and the management of the institution by themselves or through) their nominees, the learned Subordinate Judge found in favour of the plaintiffs. But he upheld the defendants claim to prescriptive title and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

2. In the view that we take on the question of limitation, it is unnecessary to deal with the questions raised by issues 1 to 3, as to the plaintiffs title to manage the suit temples and properties, by themselves or through their nominees. Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar, on behalf of the appellants, questioned the lower Courts-conclusion on the point of limitation, on three grounds. He argues that the learned Judge was wrong in holding that Aswatha Ayyars possession of the properties or the office ever became adverse during his1 lifetime. He next contended that the defendant could not tack on the period of Aswatha. Ayyars possession to his own to make up the period of 12 years possession. Lastly he contended that the suit was not governed by Article 124 but only by Article 144. Taking these arguments in order, it is true that the Subordinate Judge finds that Aswatha Ayyar came into possession as a nominee of the plaintiffs in the year 1890. But he also points out that in 1905 the plaintiffs purported to dismiss Aswatha Ayyar or revoke his appointment. When their new nominee Pavadai Pillai instituted O.S. No. 48 of 1905, Aswatha Ayyar filed a written statement (Ex. 15-A) on 9th September 1905, wherein he set up right in himself and repudiated the claim of the plaintiffs. That suit was no doubt dismissed on the ground that Pavadai Pillai had no right, of action. and that the villagers alone should, if" at all, institute a suit. But we are not in the present litigation, concerned with the frame of that suit; but the learned Juige was right in holding that in view of the purported dismissal of Aswatha Ayyar by the plaintiffs and his definite repudiation of the plaintiffs claim in his written statement the plaintiffs could not maintain that after September 1905, Aswatha Ayyars possession was one consistent with their claim and title,

3. Aswatha Ayyar however died within 12 years of that suit. Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar therefore argues that Aswatha Ayyar could not within hi3 lifetime have acquired a prescriptive title under Article 124. This is no doubt so but the learned Judge has held that defendant 1 who, according to the plaint case, got into possession and managemont immediately on Aswatha Ayyars death, was entitled to tack on the period of Aswatha Ayyars adverse possession to his own. To this Mr. Muthiah Mudaliar raises two objections; first, he suggests that defendant 1 did not really get into possession of the office immediately on Aswatha Ayyars death but there was an interruption by reason of the period during which Aswatha Ayyars widow was in management. This is not the case in the plaint and it