BHARMANNA Vs. SHIRAGONDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us were defendants 1 to 5 in the trial Court. On 26th June 1951 the plaintiffs filed this suit for possession of suit properties consisting of a land and a house as reversioners of one Bhutali, husband of one Laxmibai. It is not disputed that the properties in suit belonged to the said Bhutali and on his death it devolved on Laxmibai as his widow. In the year 1910 Laxmibai remarried one Balappa Desai. Defendants 3, 4 and 5 are the sons of Laxmibai by the said Balappa Desai. On 27-5-1927 she sold the suit land to the father of defendants 1 and 2. In the year 1951 Laxmibai died. Thereafter on 26th June 1951 the present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs as the reversioners of Bhutali, first husband of Laxmibai.

(2.) The suit was resisted by defendants 3, 4 and 5 and also by defendants 1 and 2. The principal ground on which the suit was resisted was that Laxmibai had become the absolute owner of the suit properties by adverse possession and the suit properties became her stridhana property and she was competent to pass an absolute title thereto by the sale deed dated 27-5-1927. The other ground taken was that the suit was barred by limitation, because, as a result of her remarriage Laxmibai ceased to have any interest in Bhutali's estate and the reversioners became entitled to the said estate immediately on such re-marriage. It was contended that the cause of action of the reversioners arose on the said re-marriage and the suit should have been filed within 12 years thereafter either under Article 140 or Article 143 of the Limitation Act and the suit not having been brought within the said period of 12 years, was barred by limitation.

(3.) Both the Courts found in favour of the plaintiffs. On the question of adverse possession, both the Courts came to the conclusion that possession of Laxmibai even after her remarriage retained the character of possession as a limited owner and, therefore, there was no adverse possession against the reversioners of her first husband. The present appeal has been filed against the said decision of the lower appellate Court.