Miller, J.

1. The learned Advocate-General argued only two questions at the Hearing of the appeal--

(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation and

(2) Whether the water-cess was properly levied by reason that the Vamsadhara river is a river belonging to the Government.

2. As to the first question, it is not denied that if the suit id a suit to establish a periodically recurring right, a suit, that is, to which Article 131 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877 is applicable, then it is barred; but it is contended that that article does not apply and that a cause of action arises on each occasion on which the cess is demanded.

3. This contention is supported by Sriman Madhabushi Achamma v. Gopisetti Narayanasawmy Naidu (1910) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 171 and the case therein referred to, Gopaladasu v. Perraju (1902) 12 M.L.J. 126; in fact, it seems to me that if those cases are rightly decided the respondents contention must prevail. The Advocate-General did not succeed in satisfying me that Sriman Madhabhushi Achamma v. Gopisetti Narayanasawmy Naidu (1910) I.L.R. 33 Mad. 171 can be distinguished. Following that case I must hold that the suit is not barred.

4. On the second