A widow in possession of her husband's estate without force or fraud is entitled to retain possession till her dower debt is paid.

( 1 ) THE appellants are defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of the properties. The averments in the plaint are as follows;- the plaintiff s father late Syed Hussian akbar Hussain was the sole and absolute owner of the suit premises. He died leaving the plaintiff and the defendants as heirs. Plaintiff and 2nd defendant are the sons through his first wife Bibi Sabi. Defendants 1 and 4 are the son and daughter of second wife, 3rd defendant. The plaintiff and defendants are in possession of the property. The shares of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and 2nd defendant are 1/4th share each and the defendants 3 and 4, 1/8th share each.

( 2 ) THE defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement stating as follows :- defendants 1 to 3 are residing in a house No. 4-3-75, which is made subject-matter of partition by the plaintiff. On the death of the plaintiff s father, the 3rd defendant became entitled to dower amount of 85 1/2 tulas of gold. Pursuant to settlement the defendants 1 to 4 took actual possession of the house No. 4-3-75, and 78 excluding two rooms. The 3rd defendant is in joint possession with defendants 1, 2 and 4 in lieu of payment of Dower and she is entitled to retain such possession. The plaintiff has been in possession of the two rooms and collecting rent for one from the tenants. As there is no joint possession the question of partition and right to a share does not arise. In reply to the notice sent by the plaintiff it was stated by defendants 1 to 3 that the plaintiff is in possession of more than his share if the shares are divided taking into consideration the dower amount payable to the 3rd defendant.

( 3 ) ON the above pleadings the following issues are framed ;-1. What are the properties available for partition ? 2. Whether the settlement amongst the heirs and defacto partition pleaded in the written statement is true and binding on plaintiff? 3. Whether the dower amount of 3rd defendant is to be paid out of the estate and if so what is the amount? 4. Whether plaintiff is in joint possession or not? 5. Whether the court-fee paid is correct? 6. Whether the suit is barred by time? 7. To what relief ?

( 4 ) THE learned III Additional judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad found that there was no settlement as pleaded by the defendants with regard to the arrangement of the enjoyment of the house and it is also not true that her possession of the house is in lieu of her claim for Dower and as such the claim for dower is barred by limitation. It is also held that the property has to be divided without taking into consideration the claim for mehar or dower. Ultimately on issue No. 2 it is held that the settlement amongst the heirs and the defacto partition pleaded in the written statement is not. true and not binding on the plaintiffs and on issue No. 3 it is held that the dower amount of 3rd defendant need not be paid out of the estate. On issue No. 4 it is held that the plaintiff is in joint possession of the house. It is further held that the payment of court-fee is correct. It is further held that the question of limitation in a suit for partition does not arise and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/4th share. On the basis of these findings the suit is decreed for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share of the plaintiff. On appeal at the instance of the defendants the learned single judge upheld the findings of the trial court and confirmed the decree and judgment.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the factum of possession of portion of the premises entitles her to claim dower at the time of partition of the properties and as such is not barred by limitation. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that mere possession of the properties does not entitle the 3rd defendant to claim dower and the period of limitation prescribed for claiming the dower is t