Subrahmania Aiyar, O.C.J.

1. The right set up by the appellant--the present holder of the hereditary office of karnam in the village of Pinakadimi--that he is entitled to an annual payment as rusum is of course a periodically recurring right falling within Article 131 of the Limitation Act, and as to the difference between the four annas claimed by the appellant and the two annas admitted by the respondent, the right, if it ever existed, must, as taken by the lower appellate Court be held to be barred, the plffs predecessor in office having, according to that Courts finding, which, as a finding of fact, is finding on us, been first refused the enjoyment of the right more than thirty years before the institution of the present suit It is scarcely necessary to say that the fact that the appellant himself succeeded to the office within twelve years before the suit is immaterial,, since, in consequence of the identity of interest which exists in the case of successive office holders of the present description the office-holders for the time being in the absence of fraud or collusion represents his successor so as to make the appellant ,a person deriving his right to sue from or