The judgment establishes the principle that the sale of the office of a trustee for pecuniary advantage is not valid in law, and the suit for a hereditary office is barred by limitation under Article 124 of the Limitation Act.

Madhavan Nair, J.

1. S.A. No. 1405 of 1925. This second appeal is directed against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura in A.S. No. 2 of 1922 which affirmed the decree of the District Munsif of Srivilliputtur dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

2. The suit related to the office of Sri Pandaram in Vaidyanathasawmi temple, Srivilliputtur. The plaintiffs alleged that the office was held by one Veerappa, Pillais family as a hereditary office, that they as members of that family are at present entitled to hold that office, that defendants 1 and 2 are trustees of the temple and that defendants 3 to 6 are obstructing them from holding office and receiving its emoluments. The suit was. for a declaration of their right to hold the office and for an injunction directing, the defendants not to prevent the plaintiffs from entering into the temple and performing the duties attached to it. Various issues were raised in the case but in this second appeal we are concerned only with the questions formulated by the Subordinate Judge as points 3, 4 and 5 which are as follows:

Point 3.-Whether a suit for a mere declaration and injunction without a prayer for possession cannot be maintained.

Point 4.-Whether the plaintiffs have got title to the office claimed.

Point 5.-Whether the plaintiffs rights, if any, are barred by limitation.

3. The lower appellate Court found that the office of Sri Pandaram was held by Veerappas family as a hereditary office and that a suit for a mere declaration and injunction without a prayer for possession could be maintained; but it held that the plaintiffs have no present title-to the office claimed and that their rights, if any, are barred by limitation. The appellants call into question the correctness of the decision on points 4 and 5, while the respondents try to sustain the judgment also on the ground that a suit for a mere declaration and injunction would not lie on which point the learned Subordinate Judge, as stated before, has found against him. A decision on any of these points, if it is adverse to the plaintiffs, will entail a dismissal of this second appeal,

4. I shall first consider the question raised as point 4 by the Subordinate Judge, that is, whether the plaintiffs have got title to the office claimed.

5. The following facts are not disputed: Ex. R, the genealogical tree will explain the relationship of the various members of the family. The present plaintiffs are the sons of Vaidyalingam Pillai marked as defendant 7 in that table. Veerappa Pillai, the last holder of the office died in 1884, leaving his widow as his only-heir. She carried on the duties with the help of one Audinarayana Pillai, her sisters daughters husband. She died in 1895. As the trustees were not satisfied with Audinarayana Pillai, he was dismissed from the office in 1889 and when he attempted to re-enter on his duties by force, the then trustee instituted a suit to recover possession of the suit properties from him. In that suit O.S. No. 77 of 1897 the Sub-Court of Tiunevelly gave a decree that:

Upon the plaintiffs satisfying the Court in execution that a proper person with hereditary right has been appointed by the trustee of the plaint temple, with the sanction of the Siva temple committee, to perform the duties of Sri Pandaram and to have possession of the lands etc., the plaintiff as trustee of the temple be put, with the assent of such a person, in possession of the plaint lands....

6. This decree was subsequently modified by the High Court; by expunging the words " with hereditary right " and by substituting the words on behalf of such a person " in the place of the words " with the assent of such a person." The trustees by this decree acquired the right of appointing the Sri Pandaram office holder. In accordance with the decree of the High Court, the trustees appointed one Muthukumara Gurukkal to the office of Sri Pandaram on 5th January 1900. He continued in office for over 18 years and was dis