Benson, J.

1. The plaintiff, who is a minor, sued, as reversioner, for a declaration that an alienation of the plaint property by the 1st defendant, who is a Hindu widow, is invalid as against him after the death of the widow. The District Munsif gave (the declaration asked for, but the District Judge dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs father did not bring any suit (though it was open to him to do so) and any such suit by the father would now be barred by time and a suit by the son must a fortiori be also barred.

2. The District Judge refers to Ayyadorai Pillai v. Solai Ammal I.L.R. 24 M. 405 as an authority for his view. But that case refers to an adoption which introduces an heir into a family and effects a change of status and is thus very different from a, mere transfer of property and attention was specially drawn to this distinction by the learned Judges who decided Ayyadorai Pillai v. Solai Animal I.L.R. 24 M. 405. The District Judge seems also to have had in view the case of Chhaganram Astikram v. Bai Motigavri I.L.R. 14 B. 512 which is referred to by the District Munsif and which is directly in support of the view take