The substantial questions of law raised for decision in the second appeal are as follows:

"(1) Whether the widow governed by Nanjilnad Vellala Regulation No.6 of 1101 ME (1926), who has no right to a share in the properties of her deceased husband but having come into possession of one out of 18 items of the husband's property and having continued to possess the same property even after a partition suit filed in 1942 by one of the legal heirs of her deceased husband in respect of only 18 items of properties can be said to possess the present suit property, namely, the one item and acquire a right of adverse possession or prescribed title by way of adverse possession as against all the legal heirs of her deceased husband?

(2) Whether a Hindu female who was only entitled to maintenance and not to possession obtained possession such possession can be held to be adverse to those entitled to possession so as to enable her to prescribe for an absolute title unless they could show that the possession was the result of some arrangement between them?

(3) Whether the present suit for partition is hit by Section 11, Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in view of the earlier