Miller, J.

1. This appeal arises from a suit in which the Raja of Ramnad (the present sole plaintiff) prays the Court to hold that two leases executed by his father, one on the 5th of November 1889 and the other on the 2nd of June 1893, are not binding upon him and to direct the defendant to deliver to him possession of the property affected by them.

2. The principal ground on which the suit is based is that the lessee obtained the leases by the exercise of undue influence. That is denied by the defendants, who also raise many other pleas and among them, a plea that the suit is barred by Article 91 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act.

3. The original lessee died in 1899, and the plaintiffs father was then alive. The suit was instituted in 1904, and it is not contended before us, though it was contended in the Court below, that the undue influence continued after the death of the lessee to be exercised by his sons.

4. For the appellant it is argued that Article 91 is inapplicable to the case, first, because it cannot, in any case, be applied to a suit founded on an allegation of undue influence, and secondly, because the suit is not a suit to cancel or set aside an inst