https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187015 A hereditary shebaitship was treated as a claim to office and property, so Article 141 of the Limitation Act, confined to suits for immovable property falling on the death of a female heir, did not apply; Article 124 governed the claim for possession of the shebaitship. Reading Article 124 with the definition of possession adverse to the plaintiff, the Court held that adverse possession must run against the plaintiff or a person through whom title is derived. As the plaintiffs did not derive title through the Hindu widow, adverse possession against her did not become adverse against the reversioners until her death. The suit was therefore within limitation and possession of the one-third shebaitship interest was recoverable. en-us Fri, 16 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Oct 2016 16:35:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187015 A hereditary shebaitship was treated as a claim to office and property, so Article 141 of the Limitation Act, confined to suits for immovable property falling on the death of a female heir, did not apply; Article 124 governed the claim for possession of the shebaitship. Reading Article 124 with the definition of possession adverse to the plaintiff, the Court held that adverse possession must run against the plaintiff or a person through whom title is derived. As the plaintiffs did not derive title through the Hindu widow, adverse possession against her did not become adverse against the reversioners until her death. The suit was therefore within limitation and possession of the one-third shebaitship interest was recoverable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 Jan 1953 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187015