1. For the purposes of this second appeal, it must be held that the plaintiff, Mt. Bharto is the daughter of Mt. Rukmin by Hari Ram This was disputed by the defendant, but both the subordinate Courts held in favour of the plaintiff. The next point is whether the suit for declaration by plaintiff that the deed of gift executed by Mt. Rukmin in favour of Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 was not binding on her was time barred or not. It was argued that Mt. Rukhmin lost her right to hold her husband's estate for her life on her remarriage, and as she continued in possession she became owner by adverse possession after a lapse of twelve years. Reference was made to Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act (Act No. 15 of 1856), which enacted that a Hindu widow on remarriage forfeited all her rights and interest in her deceased husband's property. This Court, however, has held repeatedly that this forfeiture does not apply to a Hindu widow who is permitted to remarry prior to 1856. All the previous judgments are referred to at page 165 of a Bench ruling of this Court in Gajadhar v. Kaunsilla  31 All. 161. Mr. Justice Banerji, who delivered the judgment of the Court, felt himself bound by the previous rulings. His personal opinion appears to be that the rulings of the Calcutta and Madras High Courts more correctly interpreted the law. We are in the same position and are not prepared to refer the matter to a Full Bench after this Court has taken one view for a long series of years.
2. It was next argued that a Jat of the class to which Mt. Rukmin belonged was not permitted to remarry prior to 1856. The learned Judge of the lower Court has examined the evidence on page 12 of the printed book. We agree with him that the wajib-ul-arz did not record any custom confined to Jats alone because the cosharers of the village belonged to communities other than Jats as well as Jats, The learned Judge referred to the evidence of Pirthi Singh, witness for the defence, who deposed that a Hindu widow in the village in which the parties lived never forfeited her right to her deceased husband's property by her remarriage.
3. Mt. Rukhmin was therefore a life-holder and did not start any adverse title by her remarriage.
4. We dismiss the appeal with costs.