A presumptive reversioner does not have the right to challenge an alienation made by a limited owner during her lifetime unless the suit is brought in a representative capacity for the benefit of the actual reversioner when the reversion opens.

Rai, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendants 1 and 2 against the judgment and the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Arrah dated nth October 1947, reversing those of the Munsif of Sasaram dated 8th February 1946.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that a rehan bond dated 27th April 1938, executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 3 and a sale deed dated 8th December 1937, executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendant 2 are inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiff. According to the case of the plaintiff, Ramdutt Rai and Sahdeo Rai were two brothers. Ramdutt Rai died about 12 years ago leaving his widow ML Maida Kuer, the plaintiff. Sahdeo Rai died leaving behind his widow Daulat Kuer, defendant 1, and his son Bisbundeo Rai. The latter is said to have died about 14 years ago. The plaintiffs case further was that on 18th July 1937 certain properties were given by her to Daulat Kuer defendant 1, by way of maintenance by a registered document EX. a. But now the plaintiff has come to learn that by practising fraud on her instead of a deed of maintenance, a deed of partition had been brought into existence. She further averred that defendant 1 in collusion with her brother Chulhan Singh had brought into existence the rehan bond and the sale deed in question which she had no right to execute and which are not binding upon the plaintiff. The sale deed had in fact been taken by Chulhan Singh in the farzi name of a relation of his.

3. The case of the defendants, on the other hand, was that Ramdutt and Bishundeo were separate, and defendant 1 had inherited the properties of Bishundeo as his mother. The deed of partition dated 18th July 1936, was a genuine document. No fraud had been practised on the plaintiff at the time of the execution of the said document which was executed by the plaintiff after she bad fully understood the same. The rehan bond had been redeemed by the sale deed which, according to the defendants, wag a genuine transaction and was binding upon the plaintiff. According to the defendants the suit as framed was barred by limitation.

4. The trial Court came to the conclusion that Ramdutt and Bishundeo had separated. The deed of partition dated 18th July 1936, had been validly executed by the plaintiff and defendant l, and no fraud had been practised on the plaintiff as alleged by her. It was further of opinion that the deed of partition, EX. A, was never meant to be a deed of maintenance. On the question of the plea of limitation as raised by the defendants, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the suit as framed was barred by limitation. According to it, the period of limitation applicable to the present suit was that provided by Article 120, Limitation Act and, not Article 125 of the same Act.

5. On appeal by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court accepted the finding of the trial Court disbelieving the case of the plaintiff that fraud had been practised upon her at the time of the execution of Ex. A. The lower appellate Court also came to the conclusion that no fraud had been practised upon her. It, however, came to the conclusion that Ramdut and Bisbundeo had not separated, that Ramdut had died last of all, and in this view of the finding the document, EX. A, might be construed to have been executed for maintenance of defendant 1. According to the lower appellate Court, the sale deed in question had been taken by Chulhan Singh, brother of defendant 1, in the farzi name of his relation, Sheonandan Singh. According to that Court, the suit was not barred by limitation, as the period of limitation applicable would be one provided by Article 125, Limitation Act. According to the lower appellate Court the suit was not barred even if Article 120, Limitation Act, applied as the plaintiff knew of the sale deed in question only six or seven months before the filing of the suit which was filed on 11th February 1944. According to it, the time would begin to run under Article 120 fro