1. We are of opinion that this appeal must be dismissed. The only point urged before us is that the lower Courts are in error in holding that the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation, and the learned pleader for the appellants relies upon Article 127 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act in support of his contention. We find, however, that in the ease of Bam Lakhi v. Durga Charan Sen 11 C. 680 it has been decided that that article will not apply to a case like the present, where a stranger has purchased the share of a member of a joint family, so that even supposing that the presumption which applies to a Hindu joint family would be applicable to the present case in which the parties are Mahomedans, we think that the contention relied upon by the pleader for the appellants must fail.
2. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs.