The main legal point established in the judgment is the creation of an express trust within the meaning of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, and the legal representative's bar from pleading the statute.

Phillips, J.

1. The plaintiff in this case is the daughter of one Ponnambala Chetti, who, with his brother, Periyambala Chetti, formed an undivided family. They carried on money-lending dealings and entrusted those dealings to their brother-in-law, Sadayappa Chetti, the father of the present defendant. Sadayappa Chetti continued those dealings for some time and maintained accounts for the moneys in his hands. In 1906 the brothers, Ponnambala Chetty and Periyambala Chetty, effected a partition and the latter removed his share of the property from the hands of Sadayappa Chetty who, however, continued to deal with the property of Ponnambala Chetty until the latters death in February, 1912, and even after that date remained in possession of all his property. The plaintiff now alleges that Sadayappa Chetty held all these properties in trust for her and has brought this suit against his son, the defendant, for an account. These facts are not disputed, but it is contended that the plaintiffs suit for an account is barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge has, however, found that Section 10 of the Limitation Act is applicable to this case, and has given a decree. In appeal we are only concerned with the question of limitation, it being contended for the appellant that Section 10 is not applicable because the property of Ponnambala Chetty had not become vested for any specific purpose either in Sadayappa Chetty or in the defendant. The main point relied on in appeal is that the property never became vested in Sadayappa Chetty for any specific purpose ; and it is contended that as the property consisted of promissory notes, bonds and mortgage deeds, the provisions of Section 5 of the Trusts Act were not complied with, and no valid trust has been created. It is in evidence that shortly before his death Ponnambala Chetty directed Sadayappa Chetty to hold his property for the benefit of his wife and daughter ; and there seems to be no reason to disbelieve the oral evidence on this point, for, many witnesses speak to the fact and the discrepancies in their evidence are merely on matters of detail which is due to the tact that the witnesses are deposing to events which took place nine years ago. It is also alleged that when Sadayappa Chetty died in December, 1912, he informed the plaintiff and her mother that his son would continue to hold the property on their behalf. The arguments in appeal have been confined to the entrustment alleged to have been made by Ponnambala Chetty shortly before his death, and it is contended that, as some of the property consisted of mortgages which were immoveable property, no valid transfer was effected as there was no registered instrument of transfer, and consequently, the property did not vest in Sadayappa Chetty, and a fortiori did not vest in him for any specific purpose. This argument, however, ignores the pleadings in the suit. The plaintiff alleged that the properties vested in Sadayappa Chetty and after him in his son, the defendant, and were held in trust for her. The defendant admitting that the properties vested in him contended that the properties vested in him absolutely and that the plaintiff had no interest therein. This contention of the defendant has been found against and this finding is not disputed in appeal. It was therefore the case of both parties that the properties actually vested in the defendant. Consequently no evidence was let in as to the manner in which such vesting was effected, and consequently it hardly lies with the. defendant now to plead that the plaintiff has not proved an effective transfer of the properties.

2. Apart from this, the whole of the appellants argument has been confined to the period dating from Ponnambala Chettys death ; but it is in evidence and is not disputed now. that the property entrusted to Sadayappa Chetty was entrusted to him many years before Ponnambala Chetty died, the alleged trust being at the time one for the benefit of Ponnambala Che