CHAUDHRI SATGUR PRASAD Vs. KISHORE LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad, affirming the conclusion come to by the Subordinate Judge of Gorakhpur. The only question of substance is when time began to run under the Indian Limitation Act against a claim to recover possession made by the first respondent. The property in dispute was held by a Hindni lady called Dilla Kunwari. She died in 1895, and the controversy turns on whether her possession was that of one claiming adversely as against any other title, or whether, as the Courts below have held, that possession was not adverse but under licence from or by permission of the predecessors-in- title of the first respondent, a licence or permission granted during the lady s lifetime, in order to afford her the maintenance which she claimed an a widow. In that case time did not begin to run against his claim until she died in 1895, and the Limitation Act has not operated so as to defeat this action.

(2.) It will be convenient, in order to make the situation of the parties intelligible, to set out the pedigree in a table :-

(3.) It is not now in dispute that Bhavani and Basant, who appear in the pedigree, were at the time of the death of the former in 1851 joint, and that Basant became entitled to the entire family property, subject to such rights as Kishen and Dilla, Bhavani s widows, possessed. When Basant died in 1859, his widows, Raghubans and Jadubans, had similar rights, and subject to these his sapindas, the male cousins and his reversioners, Hanuman and Hanwant, took the property. In 1861 Raghubans and Jadubana, the widows of Basant, both died, and it is of importance to see what happened then. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the two widows of Bhawani got possession of the estate in equal moieties. As will appear, the controversy is confined to the share held by Dilla, for as to the other half taken possession of by the other widow, Kishen, an independent title, under a deed of gift, as to which title there is no dispute in this appeal, became vested in her daughter, Jadunath, and was transmitted to the defendants. Jadunath took possession of this half in 1879 under the deed of gift. It is immaterial whether the deed was valid or not, so far as concerns what she took possession of in that year, for any claim of the respondent plaintiff against her has, as is not in dispute, become barred by limitation. The only question is as to what was held by her aunt, Dilla.