Gokul Prasad, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for possession of a certain share of a zemindari as the nearest, reversioner of one Manbhawan Lal on the allegation that the plaintiff was the reversioner of the property of Manbhawan Lal, the last full owner, who died leaving a widow Musammat Sumirta. After her death defendants Nos. 1 and 2 got the mutation of names effected in their favour on the 129th of January 1908 over the property In dispute. They have since transferred the property to Maiku Lal, defendant No. 3. The plaintiff, as has already been stated, brought the suit as the nearest reversioner of Manbhawan Lal for possession. The only defendant who contested the claim was -defendant No. 3, the transferee. His defence was two fold (1). That Musammat Sumirta died more than 12 years ago and (2) that the plaintiff was not the nearest reversioner.
2. The First Court found on both these issues against the plaintiff and dismissed his claim. The lower Appellate Court has, however, found that the suit was within 12 years of the death of Manbhawan Lal's widow but that the plaintiff had failed to $how that he was the nearest reversioner of Manbhawan Lal, and on this finding confirmed the dismissal of his claim. The plaintiff comes here in second appeal and the only ground argued by his learned Vakil is that having regard to the fact that the present suit was not brought till about the close of the 12 years' period of limitation, allowed by law, and that no other reversioner had come forward in the meantime, it might be taken that the other reversioners had given up their rights in favour of the plaintiff; and reliance is placed on the case of Chhotu v. Inayat Ullah A.W.N. (1899) 191 That case, however, was decided on its facts and there the two uncles of the then plaintiff had expressed their willingness that the plaintiff should get the property, having regard to the wishes of the last owner. That ease is no authority for the proposition now contended for before me. Further, in that case the suit had been brought only a day before the expiry of the 12 years. In the present case the other reversioners had nearly a month to run before their claim would be barred by time, as the lady had died on the 1st of June 1907 and the present suit was instituted' on the 2nd of May 1919. On the finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he was the nearest reversioner, the suit was bound to fail and it was rightly dismissed. I confirm the decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss this appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.