BANKEY LAL Vs. RAGHUNATH SAHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case Bansidhar, the last male owner, died in 1878 and was succeeded by his widow Mt. Gumane. Mt. Gumane died in 1894. On her death the estate devolved on their daughter Mt. Saraswati under the Hindu law, but Bansidhar's collaterals took possession of the estate and Mt. Saraswati never got possession. In her lifetime she never sued to recover possession She died in 1920. The present plaintiffs are the sons of Mt. Saraswati and are, under the Hindu law, entitled to the estate in preference to the collaterals. The defendants are the representatives of the collaterals who took possession of the estate in 1894, and some of the defendants are transferees from them.

(2.) The plaintiffs suit was instituted in 1923, and they claimed that the cause of action in their favour accrued in 1920 when Mt. Saraswati the daughter died. Among other pleas the defendants raised the plea that the suit was barred by time. This plea was overruled by the Court below and the claim was decreed. The defendants preferred an appeal to this Court which came up for hearing before a Division Bench. In consequence of certain observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Vaithialinga Mudaliar V/s. Srirangath Anni , the Bench has referred the following question to this Pull Bench: To what extent, if any, and under what circumstances will adverse possession, proved as against a Hindu female heir, bind the reversioners?

(3.) Whenever any question of limitation is raised it leads to clear thinking if at the outset it is settled which article is applicable. The present case is governed by Act 9 of 1908. On behalf of the plaintiffs reliance is placed on Art. 141, whereas the defendants advocate relies on Art. 144. He also relies on provisions of Section 28, Lim. Act. It is conceded that no other article or section is applicable.