Subba Rao, J. - (1.)I have had the advantage of perusing the instructive judgment prepared by my learned brother, Ranganadham Chetty J. I do not propose to express my view on the interpretation of the second paragraph of Section 10 of the Limitation Act. I would rather prefer to base my conclusion on the provisions of Article 120 of the Limitation Act.
(2.)The facts relevant to appreciate the question raised may be briefly stated. The Endowments Board framed a scheme in the year 1927 for the management of the temple of Malleswaraswami situated in Balijepalli Agraharam of Guntur District. Under the scheme, three non-hereditary trustees were appointed. Prior to the scheme, three persons, claiming to be hereditary trustees, were in possession of the properties belonging to the temple. After the scheme, two of them surrendered possession but one Balakrishniah set up the claims that he prescribed for the right of trusteeship by adverse possession and that he was entitled to continue in management undisturbed so long as he was accounting for the profits of the deity. That plea was not accepted by the trustees and they took possession of the lands through court on 24-12-1942. Thereafter, the trustees filed a suit for an account of the profits realised by Balakrishniah. As he died prior to the decree, it was continued against his legal representatives. The suit was resisted on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
(3.)A suit for accounts against a De facto trustee is not specially provided for by any of the Articles of the Limitation Act, and, therefore, it is governed by the residuary Article. (See Yerukola v. Yerukola, ILR 45 Mad 648: (AIR 1922 Mad 150) (FB). Under that Article, a suit, for which no period of limitations provided elsewhere in the schedule, should be filed within six years when the right to sue accrues. The Judicial Committee in Mt. Bolo v. Mt. Koklan, ILR 11 Lah 657: (AIR 1930 PC 270), held that a right to sue accrues only when the defendant has infringed or at least has clearly and unequivocally threatened to infringe, the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit The Judicial Committee in Annamalai Chettiar v. Mutukaruppan Chettiar, ILR 8 Rang 645: (AIR 1931 PC 9), applied the aforesaid principle to a suit for accounts against a trustee and held that it would not be barred by Article 120 if the defendant was unable to specify any date at which he denied the claim to account. In the present case, the defendants have not established that they had denied the plaintiffs claim to account within six years from the date of the filing of the suit. The suit, therefore, is not barred by limitation.