1. We agree with the construction put upon the Will by the lower Court and find that the plaintiff was appointed co-trustee with Anjalai Achi, the widow of the testator, and that after Anjalai Achis death, the plaintiff was entitled to the possession of the charity properties as trustee. It is, however, contended for the appellants that the plaintiffs right to recover the trust properties is barred by limitation on the ground that his is a suit to recover a non-hereditary office to which the trust properties are appurtenant and reliance is placed on the decision in Kidambi Ragava Chariar v. Tirumalai Asari Nallur Ragavachariar [1903] 26 Mad. 113, which purports to follow Jagan Nath Das v. Birhhadra Das 6 M.H.C.R. 301, and Tammirazu Ramazogi v. Pantina Narasiah [1892] 19 Cal. 775. In this case it was held that when a suit was brought for an office, namely, the office of Dharmakartha of a temple to which certain immovable property was attached, the article applicable was Article 120 and not Article 144 on the ground that the right to the land was only secondary to and dependent on the right to the office. In the present case the facts seem to be distinguishable. The argument