SHRINIVASA RAYA Vs. RAMAPPA HEBBARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. One Subroya Udpa died in the year 1876 leaving a daughter Venkamma, and daughter-in-law, Satyabhama, the widow of this predeceased son, Krishna Udpa. Venkamma adpoted Subroya Adiga, who conveyed the suit properties to the appellant by a registered deed of sale, dated 5th January 1911. Satyabhama sold the suit properties to the 1st defendant s father and died in the year 1901. Venkamma died in the year 1901 and the appellant sues to recover possession of the property, on the ground that he represents the adopted son of Venkamma who as daughter s son of the last male holder became entitled to the properties on her death.

(2.) Both the lower Courts have found that Satyabhama took adversely to Venkamma and that her adverse possession commenced in the year 1876. They dismissed plaintiff s suit as barred by limitation on the ground that adverse possession against Venkamma barred the reversioner also.

(3.) We are of opinion that the decision of the lower Courts cannot be supported on this point. In considering the authorities on the subject they have failed to notice that while under the Limitation Act of 1859 dispossession of a female owner caused time to run not only as against her but also against the reversioners, Act IX of 1871 and the subsequent Acts gave the reversioners a fresh starting point from the date of the death of the female limited owner.