DAKHINA MOHUN Vs. JAGADAMBA CHOWDHRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEIR Lordships have upon consideration found themselves able to dispose of these appeals upon one of the questions which were argued at the bar very fully, and with great learning and ability, with reference to the law of limitation. And though the cases, which embrace many complicated issues, are very voluminous, the facts material for this decision are few and simple.

(2.) HURRO Mohun died childless in April, 1846, leaving two widows. That he had given them permission to adopt sons is clear; but in what order of priority the permission was given is one of the many points in dispute. What happened was that each of the widows adopted a son who died, and afterwards each of them adopted another. Of course both adoptions could not be valid, though both might be invalid, as the Plaintiffs contend they were. But during the minority of the adopted sons both were treated as adopted, and after they attained age they agreed to raise no question as between themselves, but to enjoy Hurro Mohun'a property in equal shares. If therefore either of the adoptions was valid, both of the adopted sons were safe in their possession.

(3.) THE Limitation Act in force when these suits were commenced is Act IX. of 1871, and it is on the construction of that Act that the question depends. The suits may possibly be considered as falling under one of three articles. They may be considered as suits to set aside an adoption (Article 129), or as suits for possession of immoveable property by Hindus entitled to possession on the death of a Hindu widow (Article 142), or as suits for possession of immoveable property not otherwise specially provided for in the Act (Article 145).