Manick Chandra Joaddar and Another vs Kokilmoni Dassia

Richard Garth, C.J.—The decision of the lower Court appears to us quite correct. The plaintiffs'' title to the property did not accrue until the death of Bhagabati, which occurred in the year 1287. But then the appellant contends that more than twenty years before this, Bhagabati had in fact deserted the property, which was subsequently to the desertion occupied, first, by Giridhar, and then by the appellant Kokilmoni, Giridhar''s daughter; and it is said that, as Bhagabati deserted the property, the plaintiff''s should have come in and claimed it; and, as they did not do so, they are barred by limitation.

But it has been found by the District Judge that the possession of Giridhar and Kokilmoni was not adverse to Bhagabati. On the contrary, he finds that she left them in possession of the property, and used to receive maintenance from them until she died. He considers, therefore-and apparently with good reason that their possession was hers.

But even assuming that their possession was not hers; assuming it to be true, that their possession had been adverse to her, still the question would arise, whether the case does not come within Article 1411 of the Limitation Act of 1877.

The effect of Article 1402, which made a material alteration in the law, has been considered by a Full Bench in the case of Srinath Kur Prosunno Kumar Ghose ILR 9 Cal. 934.

That article provides that in the case of a remainderman or reversioner, claiming property after the death of a tenant for life, or other person having an intermediate estate, limitation does not run against such a person, until his estate falls into possession; and then by Article 141 it is provided, that "in a like suit by a Hindu or Mahomedan entitled to the possession of Immovable property on the death of a Hindu or Mahomedan female, limitation is to run from the time when the female dies."

Now this suit, as it seems to us, is one of those contemplated by Section 141. It is brought by the plaintiff who was entitled to the property in question on the death of Bhagabati, a Hindu female; and therefore limitation, we consider, does not run against him until her death.

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Page No. 795 Foot Note

1 [Article 141:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Description of suit. | Period of |Time from which period begins | limitation. | to run. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like suit by a Hindu or Muham- | Twelve years ... | When the female dies.] madan entitled to the possession of | | immoveable property on the death of a | | Hindu or Muhammadan female. | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 [Article 140: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By a remainderman, a reversioner | Twelve years ... | When his estate falls into (other than a landlord), or a devisee,| | possession for possession of Immovable property.| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------