Wallace, J.

1. The main question in this appeal is one of limitation. The plaintiffs father was the Muttawalli of a mosque for the lighting in which the suit wakf was endowed. He and his eldest son, the 1st defendant, sold the property to the father of defendants 2 and 3 (and grandfather of 4th defendant) on 25th November, 1909. The vendee held the pro-pert until the date of the suit, 27th March, 1922. The plaintiffs sue to declare that the sale is invalid and for recovery of possession of the property for the mosque. Both the Lower Courts decreed the suit and defendants 2 to 4 appeal.

2. The main point argued is that the suit is time-barred. It is conceded that, on the latest rulings of the Privy Council, Article 134 has no application to the case, and Article 144 is the proper Article. The appellants contend that the wakf property is inalienable and that, therefore, time begins to run from the date of the sale, on which date the vendee came into possession, and that, therefore, the vendee has prescribed for much more than 12 years adverse possession. The plaintiffs contend that time began to run from the date of the death of the last Muttawalli, which occurred on the 6th Ma