1. his an appeal by the plaintiff from the Decree of the Subordinate Judge of Tanjore dismissing the suit on the preliminary ground that it was barred by Limitation.

2. The case has not been fully tried and except where the facts are admitted we have to take the statements in the plaint as true for the present purpose. The facts which raise the question in dispute may be shortly stated.

3. One Subbaiya Pandaram acquired large properties in a salt trade and settled certain of his properties in trust for charity by two instruments, dated 21st February 1890 and 13th December 1894 and marked as Exhibits B and B 1 in the case. He had an only son. Arunachela, the 3rd defendant and the plaintiff is his son. Subbaiya Pandaram constituted himself the 1st trustee and after his death his descendants according to seniority were to be trustees hereditarily. The trustee for the time being had the power, if he was so inclined, to take Rs. 144 a year for his own use out of the income of the charity properties and this power he had to exercise within three months after the close of the year. These are the only material terms of the trust deeds for the present purpose. Subbaiya Pandaram died i