JUDGMENT

1. This is a defendants' appeal against the decree, dated 17th De-cember 1930, of the Subordinate Judge of Mohanlalganj reversing the decree, dated 31st July 1930, of the Munsif, South Lucknow. It arises out of a declaratory suit. One Eaghu, a Lunia by caste, was possessed of a house in mohalla Narhi, Lucknow. He went abroad 35 years ago and has not been heard of since. His wife Mt. Parbati, defendant 1, has remained in possession of the house ever since. On 7th March 1930, Mt. Parbati executed a will in favour of Ram Adhin, defendant 2, in respect of the house in question. The plaintiff-respondent Ram Prasad, a cousin of Raghu, instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal on the allegations that Raghu had died and that Mt. Parbati was in possession of the house in dispute as a Hindu widow and as such had no right to execute the will. He claimed a declaration that the will in question was not binding on him and was void and inoperative. The defendants did not deny that the possession of Mt. Parbati at its inception was that of a Hindu widow but pleaded that after Raghu went abroad, Mt. Parbati went into the keeping of one Jangu Sonar, that seven or eight years later, when Jangu died, she became a Mahomedan and married one Hazari about 30 years ago. They pleaded that since the time she went into the keeping of Jangu, and at any rate since she became a Mahomedan and married Hazari, her possession ceased to be that of a Hindu widow and that she has perfected an absolute title to the house in suit by adverse possession for more than 12 years.

2. The learned Munsif held that Mt. Parbati after her remarriage with Hazari forfeited her widow's estate and had remained in adverse possession 'for more than 12 years. He accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act (15 of 1856) did not apply to the case and therefore her remarriage with Hazari did not effect a forfeiture of her Hindu widow's estate. He further held that after her remarriage there was no change in the character of her possession and therefore, even if it were supposed that Parbati forfeited her rights on her remarriage, she did not perfect her rights as full owner by adverse possession. He therefore allowed the appeal and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants has challenged the correctness of the findings of the lower appellate Court on both the points. He has contended that the case is governed by the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act and that even if the Act did not apply, Mt. Parbati must be held to have forfeited her widow's estate on remarriage, according to the provisions of the Hindu law. He has further contended that her possession, since the time of the remarriage, must be deemed to be that of an absolute owner and not of the limited estate of a Hindu widow.

3. We are of opinion that even if it were assumed that Mt. Parbati forfeited her widow's estate when she contracted her second marriage with Hazari, it is not possible to hold that she prescribed for an absolute estate since the time of her second marriage. There is not an iota of evidence to show that after her marriage with Hazari any change took place in the character of her possession or that she ever asserted any title as an absolute owner. All that appears on the record is that even after her remarriage she continued to hold the property exactly in the same way as before. In fact, as remarked by the learned Subordinate Judge, there is nothing to show that she was even cognizant of the fact that she had forfeited her widow's estate by reason of her remarriage. In Lajwanti v. Safachand, AIR 1921 PC 121 it was held by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, that a title acquired under Section 28, Lim. Act, 1908, through adverse possession by a widow, who claims and holds a widow's estate, inures to the estate of her deceased husband and it descends upon her death accordingly. The