1. The first point argued on behalf of the appellants is that the 2nd respondent was invested only with the power of superintendence originally possessed by the Board of Revenue under Regulation VII of 1817, and was not entitled to bring this suit. Section 51 of the Local Board's Act, V of 1884, is identical with Section 26 of the District Municipalities Act IV of 1884 and the ruling in The Chairman, Municipal Council of Rajahmundry v. Susurla Venkateswaralu I.L.R. (1907) M.11 is clear authority for the proposition that the local body to which the powers of the Board of Revenue were transferred was invested with the rights of management as well as superintendence and that the former include the right to sue for the recovery of trust property. It is suggested that even the Board cannot sue over the heads of trustees but we consider that Ex. C. is a valid resignation of their posts by such trustees, as held office at the date of its execution and it is not suggested that any other trustees had come into office prior to the date of suit. We must hold that the 2nd plaintiff was entitled to sue.
2. It is next argued that the suit is time barred. It is brought against appellants as legal representatives of B. Chenna Reddy one of the Original trustees and Section 10, Limitation Act, is applicable.
3. The last point sought to be raised is that defendants 2 to 5 should not be held liable; but the judgment of the Subordinate Judge shows that this was given up in the Lower Appellate Court, and we cannot allow it to be set up again here. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.