The only question argued before us is whether the 1st plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit notwithstanding the existence of a daughter of Appala Reddi, the last male owner, and our attention has been drawn to the case reported in L. R 8 I. A 14, Rani Ammd Koer v. The Court of Wards. That case decided that the party entitled to sue is, as a general rule, the nearest reversionery heir; no question then arose as to whether the existence of a daughter, while the property was in possession of the widow, would bar a suit by the next male reversioner. The other decisions to which we are referred are those reported at 10 B. H. C. R 351, Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal; Madari v. Mallei I. L. R 6 A 428; Balgobind v. Ramkumar I. L. R 6 A 431; Raghu Nath v. Thakuri I. L. R 4 A 16. The decision at I. L. R G A 431 is a clear authority against the appellant's contention. We agree with the conclusion at which the learned judges arrived therein, and an estate taken by a daughter being a qualified heritage, we see no reason why the existence of a daughter should bar a suit by a reversioner any more than would the existence of co-widows. In the other cases referred to, the point did not arise or was not so fully considered. Such suits are allowed for the purpose of enabling the reversioner to protect his interest against alienations made by persons in possession with a limited interest. We are of opinion that the appeal must fail and we dismiss it with costs.