The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of S. 10 (2) (g) of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's rights Act, 1933 and the succession of limited estate under S. 21.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30 9. 74 passed by the Distric judge, Chitradurga, in RA No. 2 of 1970, on his file, allowing the appeal, on reversing the judgment and decree dated 5. 1. 70 passed by the Civil Judge, chitradurga, in OS No 7 of 1965, on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF instituted a suit for declaration that the sale effected by his mother Savitramma under Ex d-2 in the year 1946 is not binding on his interest and for possession of the suit properties. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending that the plaintiff had no share in the suit properties and that he has no right to bring the suit at all. The trial court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings: (1) Does the plaintiff prove that he has filed this suit within 3 years after attaining majority? (2) If not, is the suit in time? (3) Does the plaintiff prove that his mother became the owner of the suit properties by virtue of inheritance after the death of the plaintiff's grandmother when admittedly another co-widow namely defendant-3 was alive at the time of the death of his grandmother and is still alive? (4) If not, is the suit tenable in the present form? (a) If yes, does defendant-1 prove that the alienation made by the plaintiff's mother is supported by legal necessity? (5) Does the plaintiff prove the alleged partition between co-widows of Basappa? (5a) If yes, has it any effect in the eve of law regarding the nature of the properties in their possession as co -widows? (6) Does defendant-1 prove that the release deed executed by the plaintiff's father, as the guardian of the plaintiff, is suppor ed by legal necessity or benefit of the estate? (7) What decree?

( 3 ) THE learned Civil Judge held under the material issues in favour of the plaintiff and, in that view, he decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants 1 and 2 went up in appeal before the District judge, Chitradurga, in R. A. No. 2 of 1970, on his file. The learned district Judge, in the course of his judgnment, raised the following point as arising for his consideration:"whether Savitramma alias Shanthamma inherited the suit schedule properties and that they are her "stridhana" under S. 10 (2) (g) of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's rights Act, 1933?"

( 4 ) THE learned District Judge, reusing the evidence on record, held in the affirmative under that point, concluding that the properties became the absolute stridhana' properties of Savithramma under inheritance. In that view, he further held that the alienation was legal and valid and he allowed the appeal after setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has conic up in the above second appeal before this court.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the appellant strenuously urged before me that under S. 10 (2) (g)of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's rights Act. 1933, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') Savitramma become a limited owner in view of the fart that she had a son at the time of the death of Basappa (the prospositus)

( 6 ) AS against that, the learned advocate appearing for the contending respondents argued supposing the judgment and decree of the learned district Judge.

( 7 ) THE sole point, therefore, that arises for my consideration in this appeal is: 'whether the learned district Judge is justified in holding that, Savtramma became the absolute owner when she inherited the suit properties?

( 8 ) A few facts, which are either proved or admitted are neeeessary for apprecialtion of the contention raised before me.

( 9 ) POOJARV Basappa had two wives, cangamma and Channama Gagamma had a daughter by name Savitarmma alias Shanthamma and Saviramma's son is the plaintiff by name mallikarrjunappa. Poonary Basappa died in about the yea; 1933, leaving behind him Gangamma and Channmma he two widows and Savitrnrnma