JUDGMENT : KNOX, J.:— A decree passed by the Commissioner of Kumaon in the case of Rajib Lochan Joshi, appellant, defendant v. Mitralal Sahi, respondents, plaintiffs, has been referred to this Court for opinion. The case as put by the plaintiffs is that their predecessor in title, Subadar Bahadur Sahi was hissadar in possession of the land in suit. The Subadar left Almora and placed the land in charge of one Budh Vallabh Joshi, ancestor of the defendant Rajib Lochan joshi. There was an understanding between Subadar Bahadur Sahi and Budh Vallabh Joshi that the latter would look after and manage the land and deliver it back again to the Subadar or his representative whenever called upon to do so. In support of this allegation the plaintiffs refer to a muchalka which was executed by the same Budh Vallabh Joshi during the settlement of 1844, In this muchalka, which bears date the 2nd of June, 1844, Budh Vallabh Joshi declares that mauza Padhalva is held by him on behalf of Sri Chakra Sahi, the son of Subadar Bahadur Sahi and that he caused the name of Sri Chakra Sahi to be entered in the record of rights as hissadar. He adds that the khaikari is in his name and that he cultivates only the Sir land, and lastly he adds that he will not raise any objection or dispute about the hissadari when Sri Chakra Sahi may come. 2. There was a survey made in 1864, in which the name of Hardatt, son of Budha Vallabh Joshi, was recorded as khaikar of this land, In 1870 the Settlement Officer corrected this entry at the verification of records and entered Hardatt's name as Mukhtar of the hissadar. This settlement was revised in July, 1900. Rajib Lochan Joshi, son of Hardatt Joshi, asked that his name might be entered as owner and the name of the proprietor expunged from the record, but his application was refused. Upon the case thus stated the plaintiffs sued for ejectment of the defendant. The court of ‘ first instance dismissed the, suit, the Assistant Collector hold-ing that he could only recognize the successors of Dhanilal Sahi as hissadors and the defendant a khaikar not paying any dues to the hissadar. In appeal the Deputy Commissioner held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession and granted them a decree for possession. The court of ‘ first instance dismissed the, suit, the Assistant Collector hold-ing that he could only recognize the successors of Dhanilal Sahi as hissadors and the defendant a khaikar not paying any dues to the hissadar. In appeal the Deputy Commissioner held that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession and granted them a decree for possession. The case was then taken to the court of the Commissioner. He allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. It is his decree upon which this Court is asked to pronounce its opinion, With what the learned Commissioner says at the outset of his judgment, I am in complete accord. The descendants of Subadar Bahadur Sahi having sold all their interest in the land had no right to join in the present suit. With the rest of the judgment, I am, however, unable to concur. The finding of the Deputy Commissioner on appeal is that the defendant held the land upon trust in favour of the predecessors of the plaintiffs on an undertaking that he would not oppose the claim or rights of the hissadar when asserted. He held that section 10 of the India Limitation Act, 1877, applied, and that the claim was not barred by limitation. Long and able arguments were addressed to us on both sides us to whether there was in this case any such trust as is referred to in section 10. After fully considering the arguments addressed to us, I arrive at this conclusion that the trust was not a constructive trust, but a trust for a specific purpose, and that the case does fall within section 10. This being so, the argument which the learned Commissioner bases upon long possession of the defendant and his predecessor in interest loses all force, I think that his decree was wrong. Having no knowledge myself of the incidents which attach to the position of a khaikar in Kumaon or of the value which should be attached to the entries of a settlement record in Kumaon, and there being nothing on the record pointed out to me which would enable one to pass an opinion on this point, I prefer to pass no opinion. AIKMAN, J.:— I am of the same opinion as my learned colleague in regard to the decree passed by the Commissioner. AIKMAN, J.:— I am of the same opinion as my learned colleague in regard to the decree passed by the Commissioner. There is evidence to support the finding of the Deputy Commissioner that the property in suit was made over to the predecessor in title of the defendant in trust to be restored on demand to the cesti qui trust. That being so, it was not open to the defendant to resist the plaintiffs' claim on the plea of limitation. I desire, however, to add that in my judgment the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the respondent had no rights as khaikar is open to question. In the document, dated the 2nd of June, 1844, upon which the plaintiffs mainly rely, there is a distinct assertion by the trustee Budh Vallabh Joshi of his khaikati rights. According to the Deputy Commissioner he was recorded as khaikar at the settlement of 1844. This was after the trust was created, In paragraph 5 of the plaintiffs' petition to Government it is said that at the survey made in 1864, Hardatt, the son of Budh Vallabh, was recorded as khaikar. The mere fact that at Mr. Beckett's settlement of 1870, Hardatt was record-ed as Mukhtar, does not in my opinion show that the khaikari rights had ceased to exist, although they may have been in abeyance during the time that he held the land as trustee for the absent proprietor. What may be the respective rights of a proprietor and a khaikar in this village, I have nothing before me to show. But in my opinion the resumption of the trust would not destroy any khaikari rights that previously existed. BY THE COURT.— The order of the Court is,—let the above opinions be forwarded to the Government, The office will prepare a schedule of costs on the higher scale. Let the record be returned,