Plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit out of which this second appeal arises for a declaration that the alienation made by Alamelu Ammal is not binding upon them. The properties belonged to one Ayyaswami Mudali who died in the year 1902 leaving a widow Nagammal and two daughters Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal. Nagammal died in 1924 and thereupon Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal inherited the property as the daughters of the last male holder. It is common case that some sort of division was effected between Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal and there is a question whether this division was only for convenient enjoyment or whether it was an absolute partition by which the right of the survivor to recover the property on the death of the predeceased sister was also given up. This question has not been gone into for two reasons: firstly that Kuppammal is not a party to the alienation and secondly that the matter can be disposed of without going into this question, because assuming that the alienation was supported by consideration, Alamelu Ammal one of the daughters cannot by herself alienate the property so as to be binding on the male reversioners after the death of Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal. It is enough to refer to the decision of this Court in Telumalai v. Natesachari 1which follows a decision of the Judicial Committee in Sri G. Radhamani v. Maharani Sri Pusapati Alakarajeswari 2. In this case Alamelu Ammal alone sold the property and therefore even if it was for a necessity which is disputed by the other side, the alienation will not bind the ultimate reversioners. On this short ground the plaintiffs-respondents are entitled to a declaration that the alienation by Alamelu Ammal under Ex. P-1 is not binding on them after the death of both Alamelu Ammal and Kuppammal. The question whether the sale would be binding on Kuppammal in case she happens to survive Alamelu Ammal need not be decided in this suit. If the division was an absolute one in the sense I have already indicated, then Kuppammal would have no right to recover the property from the appellant after the death of Alamelu. The alienee would be entitled to enjoy the property at least till the death of Kuppammal. But if the division was only for convenient enjoyment, then Kuppammal if she happens to survive Alamelu Ammal, can recover the property from the appellant if she filed a suit within 12 years from Alamelu Ammal’s death. But whatever may be the right of the alienee as against Kuppammal, he has no rignt as against the male reversioners, i.e., the daughter’s sons or any other persons who happen to be the actual reversioners after the death of the two daughters.

The next question argued by Mr. Viswanatha Aiyar the learned advocate for the appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation. He rightly urges that the proper article of the Limitation Act applicable in this case is not Article 125 but Article 120. Article 125 does not apply because the plaintiffs would not be entitled to the property if Alamelu Ammal was dead on the date of the suit. Article 125 runs thus:

“Suit during the life of a Hindu female by a Hindu........................who, if the female died at the date of instituting the suit would be entitled to the possession of land, to have’ an alienation of such land made by the female declared-to be void except for her life or until her re-marriage.” In this case if Alamelu died at the time of the alienation and if the plaintiffs were entitled to possession of the land on that date, then Article 125 would apply to a suit for a declaration that the alienation by her is void except during her lifetime or until re-marriage. But in this case if Alamelu was dead on the date of the suit, the plaintiffs would not be entitled to possession, because there is Kuppammal! If the division between two sisters was an absolute division, then the appellant himself would be entitled to possession of the property during the lifetime of Kuppammal and the plaintiffs-respondents