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