The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's suit was not barred by limitation, and the attestation by the next presumptive reversioners did not validate the alienations.

Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 are the appellants before us. The suit was by a reversioner for a declaration that the two alienations of 1881 and 1889 made by a widow, Aramvalarthammal, under Exhibits I and II (b) respectively are invalid against the minor plaintiff. Aramvalarthammal died in 1899, and the next reversioners are her daughters, defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The plaintiff is the adopted son of the 1st defendant, having been adopted in May 1903. The suit was brought in 1907 within five years of the plaintiffs adoption but more than 12 years from the dates of the alienations by the plaintiffs maternal grand-mother, Aramvalarthammal. The lower appellate court decreed the plaintiffs suit on the following findings and reasonings:

(a) The alienations under Exhibits I and II(b) were not made for purposes binding on the reversioner.

(b) Though the sale under Exhibit I was attested by the next presumptive male reversioner (Aramvalarthammars brother) and though the next presumptive female reversioners, the daughters, assented to the alienation, and though the male reversioner, Chinna Aiyavu Aiyar, who attested Exhibit I, owned the land next to the alienated land and was using the well on the land sold, it cannot be held that there is anything to show affirmatively that Chinna Aiyavu Aiyar understood or considered the merits of the sale-deed, Exhibit I, and hence his mere attestation is useless to show that he consented to the alienation.

(c) Exhibit 11(5), the alienation of the plaint properties in 1889 by Aramvalarthammal, is not attested by the next male reversioner though acquiesced in by the female reversioners, the daughters. But the alienee under Exhibit 11(b) resold the land and a house-site to Aramvalarthammal and her daughter, the 2nd defendant, in 1893 under Exhibits B and II(a), and the site alone was sold under Exhibit II in 1894 by the 2nd defendant to the 3rd defendant. The plaintiffs 1st witness who was the male presumptive reversioner on the date of Exhibit II has attested it. He has been examined as a witness and the learned District Judge remarks that the inference from his attestation is stronger than the inference from the attestation of Chinna Aiyavu Aiyar to Exhibit I and that nothing directly impairing the effect of this attestation was suggested to him by the plaintiff or elicited from him. The attestation of Exhibit II, which alienates only the site, by the plaintiffs 1st witness does not however involve an inference that the plaintiffs 1st witness ratified the previous alienation under Exhibit 11(b) of both the land and the site mentioned in the 2nd schedule to the plaint. Even as regards the site it is not established that his consent was with full notice and appreciation of the facts. Hence even as regards the site in the 2nd schedule, the alienation is invalid.

2. The lower appellate court did not deal with the question of limitation, but the District Munsif held:

(a) that Article 125 of the Limitation Act does not apply because it relates to a suit filed during the life of a female alienor by the nearest eversioner and, in this case, Aramvalarthammal had died before this suit was brought;

(b) that the Article applicable is Article 120, which prescribes a period of 6 years from the date on which the right to sue accrues;

(c) that though the alienations took place in 1881 and 1889, the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff only when his adoption took place and he became the daughters son and next male reversioner in 1903, and that the suit brought in 1907, within 6 years, is therefore not barred. The District Munsif further remarked that the plaintiff derived his title as reversioner directly from the last male owner (his maternal grand-father) and not through his adoptive mother, the 1st defendant.

3. The defendants Nos. 3 to 6 who are the appellants before us contend,

(1) that the suit is barred by limitation as the cause of action for all reversioners, even though they may not have