Spencer, J.

1. In the course of the full and able arguments on either side to which we have listened, no reported case has been cited in which a question arose of a choice between the application of Article 134 or 141 of the Limitation Act, Kannusami Tanjirayan v. Muthusami Pillai (1917) 5 L.W., 250 was an instance of a conflict between Article 134 and Article 144. I then observed that it was clear that the plaintiff could not have resort to Article 141 unless he first showed that Article 134 was inapplicable, the reason being that Article 144 is the residuary article for suits for the possession of immoveable property as is indicated by the words "not hereby otherwise specially provided for."

2. There is no indication that Article 134 should not be applied to suits for possession of immoveable property which but for that article might have been governed by the period of limitation prescribed in Article 141. In Seeti Kutti v. Kunhi Pathumma (1917) I.L.R., 40 Mad., 1040 (F.B.), the learned Chief Justice after discussing the law of limitation applicable to similar actions under the English Act pointed out that Article 134 of the Indian Limitation Act was in its origin wholly se