1. This second appeal arises out of a suit by a Hindu reversioner to recover the properties of one Mailarappa after the death on 9th July 1917, of his daughter Narasamma in whom the estate last vested. The relationship of the plaintiffs to Mailarappa as reversioners appears in the pedigree set forth in the District Judge's judgment and is not now disputed. The properties which were the subject of the appeal fall into two sub-divisions: (1) the properties in Schedule A; (2) the properties in Schedules B and C. Taking up the first item, Mr. Govindaraghava Aiyar the learned vakil for the appellant raised two contentions: first, that it is not shown that the properties belonged to the estate of the propositus, Mailarappa; secondly, the suit is barred by limitation under the old Limitation Act of 1859.
2. Exhibit D shows the patta in the name of Dhalappa, Mailarappa's grandfather. Exhibit C shows it is in the name of his father and Ex. B shows it in the name of himself. Ex. E shows the patta was then in the name of his mother Pattamma. This was in Fasli 1269. Pattamma being the grandmother of Narasamma, her action in obtaining the patta in her own name instead of her granddaughter's name cannot be regarded as adverse to the latter. In Fasli 1272 the patta was transferred to Pattamma's son-in-law Kristappa. It cannot be presumed that the alienation was in 1862 and that Kristappa had acquired an absolute title under the 'Limitation Act of 1859 and before the Limitation Act of 1871 had come into force. This point has not been raised in the Courts below and it is a point which necessitates some inquiry into facts. The appeal, therefore, fails as regards the A Schedule.
3. Coming now to Schedules B and C, we find that Mailarappa's title to them was admitted and Pattamma held possession as in the case of the lands in Schedule A after Mailarappa's death. She got Narasamma married to Sitaramappa, brother's son of Kristappa. The marriage must have taken place after the death of Mailarappa and before 5th October 1863. At the time of the marriage Pattamma seems to have given away the properties in Schedules B and C to Narasamma's husband, and Bhaskarappa, plaintiff's father, confirmed her action by a deed Ex. XVII, dated 5th October 1863. The question is whether the plaintiffs canget over this marriage gift. In the first place Ex. XVII shows that Pattamma dealt with the property as her own and hot on behalf of Narasamma. Secondly, a marriage gift to a son-in-law at the time of marriage made by the bride's parents or grandparents may be of a portion of the donor's property, but it cannot be of the property of the bride herself unless, perhaps, it clearly appears that the girl could not be married unless accompanied by such a gift. It is true the transactions of this case happened several years ago, but necessity of the kind suggested cannot be presumed. Bhaskarappa's confirmation cannot bind the plaintiffs: Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden  42 Mad. 523 This contention, therefore, also fails. In the result the appeal fails.
4. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.