1. This was a suit for possession of a 4-pie share out of 8 pies, and for a declaration that the defendant had no title to the said share. The property originally belonged to two brothers Ram Nath and Sham Nath. Ram Nath died in 1884, and it has been found that his brother Sham Nath died a fortnight afterwards. The property came into the possession of Musammat Larai, the widow of Ram Nath, and she continued in possession until her death on the 20th of June 1904. The defendant-appellant is the widow of Ram Nath's uncle. The plaintiff is Ram Nath's mother. Upon the death of Larai half of the property was recorded in the name of the plaintiff and the other half in the name of the defendant. It is this half share which the plaintiff claims in the present suit. She states that upon the death of Musammat Larai she, as the mother of Ram Nath became entitled to the property. It is manifest that the defendant has no title. But she contends that the plaintiff has no right to the property claimed, as Musammat Larai was in adverse proprietary possession for more that 12 years. It is true that upon the death of Sham Nath the person entitled to the property, there being no nearer heirs, was his mother, the present plaintiff, but she did not obtain possession and Musammat Larai, who had no title to the property, remained in possession for upwards of 12 years. This possession was adverse to the plaintiff, the rightful owner. Larai thus acquired an indefeasible title to the property by reason of her adverse possession and it became her Stridhan, This was so held in Kashi Ram v. Musammat Amri 32 A. 189 : 7 A.L.J. 153 : 5 Ind. Cas. 207. The property having became her stridhan it descended on her death as Stridhan property to the person who was the heir to such properties. There can be no doubt that in the absence of nearer heirs her husband's heirs were her heirs to the property. The presumption is that she was married in the Brahma form and as it is not suggested that she left any other heirs who would be nearer to the heirs of her husband it passed to her husband's heirs, [See Golab Chandra Sarkar's Hindu Law, III Edition, p. 461; Trevelyan's Hindu Law of Inheritance, p. 93;' Ganeshi Lal v. Ajodhia Prasad 28 A. 345 : A.W.N. (1906) 39 : 3 A.L.J. 85. The plaintiff as the mother of Ram Nath is Ram Nath's heir, there being no nearer heirs. Therefore, upon the death of Musammat Larai she became entitled to the property. There was no inconsistency between the title which, in my opinion, she has to the property and the title set up by her in the plaint. She claimed in the plaint a right to the property as the heir of Ram Nath. It is in her capacity as heir of Ram Nath that she is entitled to the property upon the death of Musammat Larai whose stridhan the property in question became by reason of her adverse possession. The decrees of the Courts below are, therefore, right and this appeal must fail. I dismiss it with costs including fees on the higher scale.