1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff. He brought a suit to recover possession of certain property which had come down from his ancestor Dhonai Mandal on the ground that he had been dispossessed by other members of the family. Dhonai had two sons, Tar Mamud and Jaker Mandal. The plaintiff was the son of Tar Mamud. The suit relates to property which descended to Jakir Mandal.
2. The Munsif dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation as well as on the merits. On appeal, the District Judge without going into the merits, dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation.
3. It is now argued that the learned Judge was wrong in the view that he took of the question of limitation. The only point argued here is that under Article 127 of the Limitation Act, the onus was wrongly thrown on the plaintiff by the learned Judge.
4. In my opinion, Article 127 does not apply to this case in which the parties are Muhammadans. It was held in the case of Mahomed Ahram Shaha v. Anarbi Chowdhrani 22 C. 954 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 633, that this Article did not apply to the case of Muhammadans and that decision was followed in the case of Poyran Bibi v. Lakhu Khan Bepari 7 C.W.N. 155, in which, Maclean, C.J., referring to certain other decided cases expressed the opinion that the view taken by this Court in the case of Mahomed Akram Shaha v. Anarbi Chowdhrani 22 C. 954 : 11 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 633, was the correct one. I may at once say that I agree with these two decisions.
5. The learned Pleader for the Appellant admits that no other point arises in the appeal. I consider that the appeal ought to be dismissed with costs.
6. I agree.