LAXMAN Vs. MT. SHEVANTIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present application, review is sought of my judgment in Second Appeal, No. 237 B of 1924, on the ground that the Court, having accepted the view of the District Judge that Mt. Radhi succeeded as full owner to the property concerned and took an absolute estate under the Bombay School of Hindu Law, and the plaintiff Shewantibai having succeeded in her turn as heir to her mother, and not as reversioner of Madhoji, I ought to have held as a necessary corollary thereto that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit as her mother Mt. Radhi had never in her lifetime brought any civil suit for setting aside the alienation and for possession of the subjects in dispute.

(2.) IT has been urged on behalf of the applicant in this connexion that no question of limitation arises. Only the mother, it is said, succeeded to the right of avoiding the transfer; this was a personal right which expired with her death and, therefore, the plaintiff Shewantibai succeeded to no such right.

(3.) SUFFICIENT has, I think, been said to show that the alleged mistake or error of law cannot, by any stained process of interpretation or reasoning, be regarded as one apparent on the face of the record. The point, which the applicant has attempted to make, may or may not be an arguable one from his point of view, but most obviously the matter in question is of such a nature as not to fall under Rule 1, Order 47, Civil P.C.