Hemeo—The plaintiffs-appellants are Rajah Chattar Singh and his son Dharam Singh. Their claim for a declaration that Rani Tara Moti had not become absolute owner of 19 villages of the Dilheri estate, Narsinghpur sub-division, by adverse possession and that the respondent Roshan Singh was not entitled to hold the estate as against them after her demise, because Roshan Singh's possession from the 25th of July 1917 under a deed of gift was permissive and in Rani Tara Moti's behalf and did not affect the appellant's right of inheritance as also their claim for possession, was dismissed on the 30th of October 1937 by the Additional District Judge, Narsinghpur. The plaintiffs have accordingly appealed against that decision and with this appeal will be considered the grounds contained in the cross-objection filed by the respondent.

2. The following genealogical table demonstrates the relationship between the parties with whom we are concerned in this appeal:

Raja Sangramshah (d.)

Rajah Prakal Sha (d.)

Pensha (d.)

Rajah Hatesingh (d.)

Nirpatsingh (d.)

Rajah Ranjoresingh (d.)

Dalpatsingh (d.) (Branch extinct)

Padamsingh (d.) Indrajit (d.)

Rajah Lachmansingh (d. 1806)

Udetsingh (Branch extinct)

Kamodsingh (d.)

Kiratsingh (d.) Debisingh (d.)

Rajah Khetsingh (d. 1827)

Anjansingh (d.)

Anrudsingh (d.)

Ajmersingh (d.)

Tarapat (d.)

Suratsingh (d.)

Jawaharsingh (d.) 1880

Damroolal (d.)

Tarwarsingh(alive on date of suit)

Roshan singh (deft.)

Rajah Senapat (d. 24-11-1855)

Murat Singh (d. 24-11-1855)

Chainsingh (alive on date of suit)

Bishalsingh (d.) 0

Jagroopsingh (d.)

Widows = (1) Ganga sin Moti(d.)

Rajah Balbhadrasingh (d.) 19-11-73)

Duragsing (original plff d. 1933

= (2) Umed Kunwar (d. 11-4-1894)

Widows Rani Tara Moti (d. 24-8-29) = (2) Param Kunwar (d. 1874)

Chatersingh (Plff. 1)

Khumansingh (d.)

Hirdaysingh (d. 24-12-30)

Rajah Dalipsingh (d. April 1856)

Rajah Ratansingh (d. 18-11-74)

Dharamsingh (Plff. 2)

Jorabal (alive)

3. Durag Singh, the original plaintiff, who died in 1933, was the father and grandfather respectively of the present appellants Rajah Chattar Singh and his son Dharam Singh and the son of Jawahar Singh who was, if the Raj Gond family to which they belonged was governed by Hindu law and the limited right of women under that law is excluded, entitled to succeed Rajah Ratan Singh on the 28th November 1874 when he died from smallpox. Ratan Singh's father Rajah Balbhadra Singh who predeceased him on the 26th August 1873 had two wives, viz., Ramkuar, Ratan Singh's mother, who also died in 1874, and Rani Tara Moti who lived until the 24th August 1929 during the pendency of the suit. The Court of Wards took charge of the estate in 1873 soon after the name of Rajah Ratan Singh had been entered in the revenue records in succession to his father and the estate continued under the Court of Wards until its release in 1903. On the death of Rajah Ratan Singh an enquiry regarding the right of succession was made by the revenue authorities and Rani Tara Moti, the stepmother of the last male holder, was recognised as the heir by them to a limited estate according to Hindu law and it has been found by the learned Judge of the trial Court that the intention of the Court of Wards was to remain in control of a limited estate in behalf of Rani Tara Moti whose name was duly mutated in the revenue records. On Rani Tara Moti's death this suit, which was brought to obtain a declaration when she was alive, was enlarged into a suit for possession of the estate. The defendant-respondent is Diwan Roshan Singh in whose favour the Rani executed a deed of gift, vide Exhibit P-101 on the 25th July 1917 in consequence of which his name was mutated in the revenue records. The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that the claim for possession is time-barred and the question of limitation is the most important question which we have to decide in this case. The other questions for decision will be subsequently stated and dealt with.

4. In 1874, as we have already observed, the reve