1. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 are the managers of a Kattalai in a temple. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are the trustees of the temple. Since the days of Government management of the temple, a sum of 1 1/16 fanam per diem was being paid to the managers of the Kattalai for the performance of the Kattalai. From the time the defendants' predecessors were appointed trustees on the retirement of Government from management they and their successors received the amount from Government along with the other tasdik monies and paid it over to the managers of the Kattalai.
2. The present suit relates to arrears for 1 and odd years. The District Judge has held the claim barred except for the last three years before suit under Article 62 of the Limitation Act.
3. We think the suit falls under Section 10 of the Limitation Act and no portion of the claim is therefore barred. It is found that the trustees of the temple have received the monies and paid them to the manager of the Kattalai for a period of fifty years or so. Did they receive the monies as agents of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 or as trustees for them There is no writing by means of which we can determine the question. If the defendants were only agents, it would be competent to the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 to determine the agency and claim the amount direct from Government. We do not think there is any foundation for this view. On the other hand, it is well known that when Government withdrew from management of Hindu temples they appointed trustees of many temples and Kattalais. It is reasonable to presume that the defendants' predecessors were appointed not merely trustees of this temple but also for the receipt of the Kattalai due from Government to be paid over to the managers of the Kattalai. In this view no question of limitation arises. We need, therefore, express no opinion on the question whether Article 62 or Article 131 would apply to the case, if Section 10 did not apply. We must set aside the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Munsif substituting Rs. 624-3-6 for Rs. 854-8-0 and Rs. 312-1-9 for Rs. 427-4-0.
4. The plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 will pay and receive proportionate costs throughout.