The judgment established the principles of adverse possession, the distinction between widow's estate and Streedhanom, and the applicability of the Hindu Succession Act in determining the nature of the estate held by a female Hindu.

1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of their reversionary title as against the limited estate holder and her alienees, which has been dismissed by the court below.

2. The disputed properties belonged originally to the joint family of two Brahmin brothers Chidambara Iyer and Ramaswami Iyer. Ramaswami Iyer died in 1056 leaving his wife Parvathi Ammal deceased and a daughter Kavery Ammal who is the 2nd defendant in the case. Parvathi came into possession of the properties in 1056 after the death of her husband Ramaswami and continued in possession until her death in 1100, when she was succeeded by the 2nd defendant Kaveri. Soon thereafter, one of the sons of Chidambara filed suit O.S. 342 of 1100 before the District Munsiff's Court of Chittur against her as 2nd defendant and her lessee as the 1st defendant for recovery of the properties on foot of alleged title under a partition arrangement of 1087 entered into between the sons of Chidambara after his death in that same year. That partition scheme assumed that Parvathi was let into possession by Chidambara under maintenance arrangement enuring for her life and the properties were accordingly recoverable after her death by the members of Chidambara's branch. The 2nd defendant denied the maintenance arrangement and set up a case of her mother's succession to her father to whom she alleged, the properties were allotted in partition in the family. She accounted for her possession, as heir of her father, after her mother's death and contended that the suit for recovery on basis of title was misconceived.

3. The trial court accepted the case of the 2nd defendant and dismissed the suit. In appeal by the plaintiff the District Court reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. In second appeal, however, the High Court of Cochin restored the decree of the Munsiff dismissing the suit. The judgment of the High Court is dated 15.2.1105 and is filed as Ext. I. It is also reported as Kaveri Ammal v. Sangameswara Ayyar 21 Cochin Law Reports 39. In the view the High Court took, it was unnecessary to decide whether the 2nd defendant's case as to partition and allotment in favour of her father was true or not; it was enough to find as they did, that the case of maintenance arrangement with which the plaintiff came to court was not made out. For according to the learned Judges Parvathi's possession of the joint family properties for more than 12 years i.e., between 1056 to 1100 constituted adverse possession against the other members of family unless it was proved that she had been let into possession with their consent, which depended solely on the truth of the maintenance arrangement. The character of the estate obtained by her, whether absolute title or only a widow's estate, might depend upon the nature of the title prescribed for by her. But that was a matter in which the plaintiff that case was not interested.

4. Subsequently, under Ext. III dated 23.10.1953 the 2nd defendant released her rights in the properties in favour of her sons who are the defendants 3 to 5 in the case and they in their turn, sold the properties under Ext. II dated 20.11.1953 in favour of the 1st defendant. This suit was thereafter filed on 19.10.1954 by the plaintiffs 1 and 2, who are the daughters of the 2nd defendant and sisters of defendants 3 to 5 claiming declaration that they were the reversionary heirs to the properties after the life-time of the 2nd defendant and that Exts. II and III were incompetent and could not affect them. According to the plaintiffs, their grand-mother Parvathi had prescribed for absolute right and not merely a widow's estate in the properties, by her adverse possession, and they, the plaintiffs, as grand-daughters of Parvathi were the preferential reversionary heirs to the estate after the termination of the limited estate of their mother the 2nd defendant.

5. The suit is resisted by the 1st defendant mainly on the footing that Parvathi