Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the plaintiffs' suit for possession of a hereditary shebaitship was governed by Article 124 of the Limitation Act or Article 141 of the Limitation Act, and whether the defendant's adverse possession against the Hindu widow barred the reversioners.
Analysis: The dispute turned on the character of a shebaitship, which combines elements of office and property, and on the effect of a female heir's limited interest. The Court held that Article 141, which is confined to suits for immovable property falling on the death of a female heir, did not apply to a claim for possession of a hereditary office. A shebaitship falls within Article 124 of the Limitation Act. Reading Article 124 with Section 2(8) of the Limitation Act, possession adverse to defeat the plaintiff must be adverse to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff derives title. The plaintiffs did not claim through the widow; their title arose as heirs of the last male holder. Therefore, adverse possession against the widow did not become adverse possession against the plaintiffs until the widow's death.
Conclusion: The suit was within limitation and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the one-third shebaitship interest.