John Wallis, C.J.

1. I have had the advantage of reading the judgment prepared by Seshagiri Aiyar, J., and will state my conclusions very briefly. If the property was undivided and Article 127 is applicable, I entirely agree with him that to bar the plaintiff there must be exclusion from the whole of the joint family property and that exclusion from the suit property only will not do. The decision in Vishnu Ramachandra v. Appaji Chaudhari (1895) I.L.R. 21 Bom. 325 appears to me to be opposed to the decree of the Privy Council in the Balgaum case (1897) I.L.R. 20 M. 256 and to the other cases cited by my learned brother as well as to the language of the article and I am unable to follow it. Assuming however that a division must be presumed to have taken place, it is said that Article 127 does not apply because the plaintiff is not a person excluded from joint family property within the meaning of the article but only a tenant in common excluded from the common property. The words "Joint family property" are used in the corresponding Section 1 Clause 13 of the Act of 1859, and I think the scope of the two enactments is the same though the starting points of limitation are diff