1. Our attention has been again called to Nobin Chunder's ease (1868) Beng. L.R. 1008 and also to the cases of Ganqacharan Roy v. Jagarnath (1869) 3 Beng. L.R. 208 and Ram Kisliore Dutt Roy v. Girish Chunder Hoy (1870) 4 Beng. L.R. 136. Those cases proceed on the view that each of several widows or daughters for the time being represents the inheritance so that an alienation by one renders the possession of the alienee after her death adverse to the others and that if they neglect to sue for 1% years and become barred, the reversioner is also barred. The principle appears to be that the possession is that of a trespasser against all persons representing the inheritance other than the alienor. It has also been ruled by the Privy Council that when the possession is that of a trespasser against a Hindu widow who represents the inheritance, such possession is adverse not only against .her but also againist the reversion. On this view our decision is erroneous and we grant the review but before disposing of the case wo shall direct the District Judge to return a finding on the following question. Issue, viz.; ' whether the alienations mentioned in the 2nd issue were assented to by the other female or females.'