Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The facts out of which the question of law referred to this Full Bench arises may be shortly stated thus:

2. Butchayya, a Hindu died in 1890. The 2nd defendant, his mother, inherited his properties with the rights and powers of a female heir. She sold the plaint properties in 1891 to the 3rd defendant. The then presumptive reversioner P.W. 1 who was entitled at once to sue for a declaration on behalf of the whole body of successive presumptive reversioners (including the 3rd defendant) failed to bring such a suit within the twelve years allowed to him by Article 125 of the Limitation Act, that is, within November 1903. The 3rd defendant who was benefited by the 2nd defendants alienation would, of course, not bring any such suit. Meanwhile, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant, (minors even at the date of this suit), were born to Butchayyas step-sisters and they on their birth became nearer presumptive reversioners than even P.W. 1. The plaintiff having been born in July 1910, brought this suit to avoid the alienation, in October 1915 within six years of his birth. The short question referred to the Full Bench is whether this suit is barred by limitation.

3. To enable us to solve this question, arguments were addressed to us on the following questions:

1 (a). When a Hindu widow makes an alienation void-able against the ultimate reversionary heir at her death or remarriage, does a single cause of action for a declaration of its invalidity arise at once to be availed of by the next presumptive reversioner by bringing a suit on behalf of the whole body of successive reversioners till the opening of the reversion, and, in case the next presumptive reversioner by collusion or other act precludes himself from availing himself of that single cause of action, to be availed of by the next reversioner in the order of succession and so on, the suit whenever brought being based on the same single cause of action ?

(b). Is Article 125 the only article applicable to the suit based on such single cause of action if 1 (a) is answered in the affirmative or

2. Do several causes of action arise at different times to several reversioners when each preceding reversioner has lost his right to bring and conduct such a suit through collusion or other similar acts ? (I shall use the word "reversioner" for brevity as including a set of reversioners standing on an equal footing as among themselves).

3 (a). If each successive reversioner gets a new cause of action does that cause of action spring up not only when the previous reversioner loses his right by collusion, etc.-positive act, but also when such right is lost by laches and consequent bar by limitation?

(b). If 2 and 3 (a) are answered in the affirmative, what is the period of limitation and what is the article of the Limitation Act governing a suit by the succeeding reversioner ?

4. Where a new reversioner comes into being for the first time by natural birth or by adoption (a) who gets preference by modern Hindu Law in respect of the status of presumptive reversioner ship over other persons who till then formed the body of reversioners or (b) who becomes entitled to sue by reason of collusion, etc. [see questions 2 and 3 (a)] does a fresh cause of action arise in the new reversioner so coming into being as above entitling him to bring a suit for declaration of the invalidity of the alienation ?

5. If (4) is answered in the affirmative, what is the period of limitation for the suit by the new reversioner and what is the governing article of the Limitation Act ?

(It will be seen from the facts of this case that it falls under the heading 4 above and that only questions 4 and 5 directly arise in this case).

4. My Lord the Chief Justice in his well considered order of reference (if I may be permitted to say so with respect) expresses his strong inclination to answer questions 1 (a) and 1 (b) in the affirmative, (that is, that there is only one cause of action arising on the date of t