Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff filed the suit which gives rise to this appeal, for a declaration that he was the lawful Mahant of the Ganga Mata Mutt and for recovery of properties belonging to it. The Mutt is situated at Puri but it owns properties of considerable value in the District of Ganjam. The District Judge who tried the suit dismissed it on the ground that the plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation. No question of fact was tried in the case and the learned Judge held that on the allegations in the plaint the claim was barred. We are not therefore concerned with the truth or falsity of the statements in the plaint but the only question is whether on these averments made in it the suit is in time or is barred. If the plaint can be construed as one for possession of a hereditary office the article applicable is Article 124 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes a period of 12 years and the suit would not be barred. If, on the other hand, the claim cannot be regarded as one to a hereditary office, Article 120 which prescribes a period of six years applies and the suit would then be barred. The point to be decided is, on the allegations in the plaint, is this