1. The only question argued before us is whether first plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suit notwithstanding the existence of the daughter of Appala Reddi, the last male owner, and our attention has been drawn to Rani Anund Kder v. The Court of Wards L.R. 8 IndAp 14. That case decided that the party entitled to sue is, as a general rule, the nearest reversionary 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 Bhikaji Apaji v. Jagannath Vithal 10 Bom. H.C.R. 351, Madari v. Malki I.L.R. 6 All. 428, Balgobind v. Ramkumar I.L.R. 6 All. 431 and Raghu Nath v. Thakuri I.L.R. 4 All. 16. The decision in Balgobind v. Ramkumar I.L.R. 6 All. 431 is a clear authority against the appellant's contention, and we agree with the conclusion at which the learned Judges arrived therein. An estate taken by a daughter being a qualified heritage like that of a widow, we see no reason why the existence of a daughter should bar a suit by a reversioner any more than would the existence of a co-widow.
2. In the other cases referred to this 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.