Judgment :- Mishra, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of Venugopal, J. under which decided that a suit for declaration that under a certain deed of settlement any property was conveyed in charity to any religious endowment, is maintainable notwithstanding power under Sec.108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959. The court on the objection of the defendants/appellants held on the facts of the case that plaintiff’s adopted mother has no competence to execute the document, that the document executed by her was not binding on the plaintiff and that the suit was not hit by Sec.108 the Act or barred by limitation under Art.60 of the Limitation Act as there has been transfer of property under Ex.A 1. The appellants contended that the prayer in the plaint for a declaration that the charity indicated in the settlement deed was not a charity of public nature connected with any public religious endowment and such a declaratory relief regarding the void nature of the document cannot be granted by the Commissioner. The question whether there was in fact a specific endowment contemplated under Sec.63 of the Act has to be only incidentally considered by court. In this view the trial court is perfectly justified in concluding that the suit is not by reason of Sec.108 of the Act. 2. We find that the learned single Judge has approached the problem truly and accordance with law on the subject. To declare a document void, one has to go to court only. The provision of the Act has given any such power to any authority of jurisdiction to decide a question of title. The courts abhor the idea of authorities of jurisdiction being vested with the power to decide the questions of title. On many such provisions under which power to declare title is vested in an authority of jurisdiction, Courts have declared the law invalid. In the instant case, the case plaintiffs/respondents, however, is on a better footing. The law on religious endowments the State of Tamil Nadu has not vested any authority of limited jurisdiction to decide question of title and declare any conveyance void. In that view of the matter, he has confirmed the judgment of the trial court on this issue. 3. In the instant case, the case plaintiffs/respondents, however, is on a better footing. The law on religious endowments the State of Tamil Nadu has not vested any authority of limited jurisdiction to decide question of title and declare any conveyance void. In that view of the matter, he has confirmed the judgment of the trial court on this issue. 3. Learned single Judge has said with regard to the plea of limitation under Art.60 Limitation Act, “It is obvious that Ex.A-1 does not operate as transfer of the suit there was no disposal of the minor’s property as such under Ex.A-1. As rightly pointed by the trial court, Sec.60 of the Limitation Act applies only where possession transferred to the alienee and inasmuch as Ex.A-1 does not purport to make any transfer the suit land to endowment Art 60 does not apply and the suit is not barred by limitation. The above approach, which we have recorded and with which we are in agreement, only correct approach to decide the question of limitation, in such a suit. There is no the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.