The main legal point established in the judgment is that the possession of the defendant for over twelve years extinguished the title of the trustee and the charity, leading to the failure of the plaintiff's suit as the successor of the trustee.

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 in 1895 and after his death a decree was obtained against Arunachela for a large sum said to be due from his father Subbaiya and in execution of that decree the charity properties covered by both Exhibits B and B 1 were attached as the private property of Subbaiya. The plaintiff objected to the attachment in the execution proceedings and on his objection being rejected instituted a regular suit to establish the right of the charity. While that suit was pending, the properties were sold in execution sale and purchased by the 1st defendant who obtained possession in March 1898 and he is in possession down to this date. Arunachela was removed from the trusteeship in July 1913 and the plaintiff is now the trustee under the deeds of endowment. The plaintiff now sues as trustee of the charity to recover possession of the charity properties on the ground that their sale for the payment of the personal debts of Subbaiya was void and that the 1st defendant acquired no title by his purchase. He also charges the 1st defendant with knowledge that the properties which he purchased were charity properties. He says he was a minor till within three years before the action was brought. In these circumstances the 1st defendant having admittedly been in possession for over twelve years at the time when the action was brought and the charity represented by the then lawful trustee, the 3rd defendant who was under no disability, having been out of possession for over twelve years the question is whether the suit of the plaintiff is not barred by the Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff says no, and his case is put by his learned pleader in four different ways.

4. First he contends that the trustee for the time being is entitled to a beneficial interest to the extent of Rs. 144 a year, out of the charity properties which can legally pass to an alienee and that the execution sale did therefore pass an interest to the 1st defendant which came to an end only on the removal of the 3rd defendant from the trusteeship and that therefore on the principle of the decision of the Privy Council in Abhiram Goswamis case (1909) 36 I.A. p. 148, as explained in Narasaya Upada v. Venkataramana Bhatta (1912) 23 M.L.J. p. 260 and followed in Muthusami Aiyar v. Sree Sreemathinithi Swamiyar avergal (1918) 25 M.L.J. p. 393 he was entitled to bring his action within twelve years after he became trustee and that the possession of the 1st defendant did not become adverse to him or to the charity till the beneficial interest of the 3rd defendant, of which the 1st defendant was transferee, ceased. This contention is, we think, untenable. The Rs. 144 which the trustee at his option is entitled to take is not an interest in the charity properties which can pass to an alienee and by virtue of which the