The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Article 102 of the Limitation Act in determining the limitation period for the recovery of emoluments.

Horace Owen Compton Beasley, Kt., C.J.

1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Pakenham Walsh, J. in S.A. No. 396 of 1929. The plaintiff is the appellant here and was a hereditary stanika office-holder of the temple of Sri Kamakshi Amman in Conjeeveram. The first defendant in the suit is the trustee of the temple and the second defendant is his agent. The suit was for the recovery of emoluments due to the plaintiff from 31st December, 1918 to 11th February, 1919. The suit was filed on 10th January, 1924, more than three years and less than six years from the date of the cause of action. One plea taken at the trial was that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court, the lower Appellate Court and Pakenham Walsh, J. have upheld that plea. At the outset it must be stated that the emoluments sued for were received by the appellant in kind, that is to say, so many measures of rice and also food offerings. These have been assessed in the plaint at Rs. 81-14-4. The question here is which Article of the Limitation Act applies. Both the lower Courts and also the second Appellate Court have applied Article 102 following Baradwaja Mudaliar v. Arunachala Gurukkal I.L.R.(1917) 41 Mad. 528, which is a direct decision upon this point. There the Court had to consider whether Article 36 of the Limitation Act or Article 102 or Article 120, applied and it was held that the claim there which was exactly similar to the claim here, fell under Article 102 and not under Article 36 or Article 120. In none of the cases cited by the appellant in support of his argument was there any consideration as to whether Article 102 should be applied rather than Article 120. The earliest case is Subbier v. Ranga Aiyangar (1899) 9 M.L.J. 163. It was there held that a suit for the recovery of profits of a hereditary office by a hereditary stanikam holder in temples fell under Article 120 and not, as contended, under Article 36. The applicability of Article 102 was not there considered and this case has been dissented from in Baradwaja Mudaliar v. Arunachala Gurukkal I.L.R.(1917) 41 Mad. 528. In Venkatavaraga v. District Board of Tanjore I.L.R.(1892) 16 Mad. 305 the applicability of Article 102 was not considered and in any case on the facts of that case it does not appear to us to be much in point. In Rathna Mudaliar v. Thiruvenkatachariar I.L.R.(1899) 22 Mad. 351 the question was whether the marriage fees payable to the archaka and claimed by him fell within Article 144 or Article 120. The lower Courts held that Article 144, applied but the High Court applied Article 120 and Article 102 was not considered. As Pakenham Walsh, J., in his judgment says, presumably the fees there would be payable by the persons who were married. This, in our view, would be an important distinction because it could be contended with reason that the relationship of employer and servant did not there exist. This question has been considered in two recent cases in this High Court. The first is Chinnaswamy Thathachariar v. Srirangam Nallan (1927) 109 I.C. 771. It was in that case observed that:

An office in connection with such institutions must really be regarded as a bundle of duties liable to be performed by the same persons under a particular designation and carrying with it certain emoluments.

2. And the applicability of Article 124 was considered in connection with a claim for the recovery of the emoluments attached to an office and it was held that Article 124 did not apply. The Court, however, was of the opinion that there would be no limitation at all in such a suit. The second case is S.A. No. 1523 of 1927. There, Jackson, J., in dealing with Chinnaswamy Thathachariar v. Srirangam Nallan (1927) 109 I.C. 771, whilst agreeing that Article 124 would not apply to such a suit declined to accept the view that there is no bar of limitation and was of the opinion that the Article applicable would be Article 120. The applicability of Article 102 was not discussed in either of