Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. Mr. Lakshmanna has argued this case at great length, but I am afraid I cannot uphold his contention. The facts may be briefly stated. The property belonged to Ramiah, who was the last full owner. During his minority, his mother, acting as his guardian, sold the property in 1873 to a person through whom the defendants claim. Ramiah died whilst still an infant in 1879 or 1880. After his death, his mother, as his heir, took possession of his other property and died in 1921. This suit was brought in 1922 by a reversionary heir for recovery of the suit item. Both the Lower Courts have held that the suit is barred by limitation. Mr. Lakshmanna contends that this decision is wrong,

2. Article 44 of the Limitation Act runs thus Description of Suit Period of Time from which period Limitation. begins to run By a ward who has attained majority, to Three years. When the ward attains set aside a transfer majority of property by his guardian.

3. Mr. Lakshmannas argument is, that as the ward died before he came of age, this article does not apply. He puts his case thus. The minors right to recover the property would, but for this article, not be barred till the expiry