https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168415 Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies only to a suit for possession of a hereditary office against a defendant in adverse possession of that office, i.e. where rival claimants dispute the office itself. Here, the trustees were not holding the office of hereditary worshipper; they had removed the appellants' predecessors and engaged servants to perform the worship, so Article 124 was inapplicable and the residuary Article 120 governed. Limitation therefore began when the right to sue accrued, at the latest in 1922 when dispossession occurred. Section 23 did not save the suits, because a completed ouster is not a continuing wrong merely because its consequences persist. The suits were barred by limitation despite the merits of the hereditary claim. en-us Thu, 26 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Feb 2015 10:47:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168415 Article 124 of the Limitation Act, 1908 applies only to a suit for possession of a hereditary office against a defendant in adverse possession of that office, i.e. where rival claimants dispute the office itself. Here, the trustees were not holding the office of hereditary worshipper; they had removed the appellants' predecessors and engaged servants to perform the worship, so Article 124 was inapplicable and the residuary Article 120 governed. Limitation therefore began when the right to sue accrued, at the latest in 1922 when dispossession occurred. Section 23 did not save the suits, because a completed ouster is not a continuing wrong merely because its consequences persist. The suits were barred by limitation despite the merits of the hereditary claim. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Mar 1959 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168415