1. The District Judge while stating the law correctly has failed to properly apply it.
2. The last male owner died in 1880, and the defendant at once took possession of the property. The last male owner's daughter, who was the party entitled to possession, died in 1889. The present suit by the reversioners to recover possesison was filed in 1893. Under Article 141, Sched. ii of the Indian Limitation Act, XV of 1877, the reversioners had 12 years from the date of the daughter's death, and their suit was therefore clearly in time (Srinath Kur v. Prosunno Kumar Ghose I.L.R.(1833) C. 984 . Sham Lall Mitra v. Amarendra Nath Bose Ib 28 C. 460 Cursandas v. Vendravandas 14 B. 482 Mukta v. Dada Ib 18 B. 215 Tai v. Ladu Ib 20 B. 801 Bam Kali v. Kedar Nath Ib. 14 A. 156 . The respondent relies on the Privy Council case reported in Lachhan Kunwar v. Manorath Bam I.L.R. 22 C. 445 . If that case was a decision with reference to Article 141,. Schedule ii of the present Act (XV of 1877) or the corresponding Article of Act IX of 1871, it would be in point; but there is nothing to show that it is so, and the dates in the recital of facts lead us to the conclusion that the rights, of the reversioners in that suit had become barred under Act XIV of 1859, before the provisions of Act IX of 1871 came into force.
3. We must, therefore, reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore the decree of the District Munsif. The appellants must have their costs in this and the lower appellate Court.