1. It appears to us that the question whether there is any conflict between Sithamma v. Narayana, I. L. R, 12 M, 487, and the cases, Patcha v. Mohidin, and Kasmi v. Ayish, amma, reported in I. L. R, 15 M, 57 and 60, does not really arise in this suit. The plaintiff’s case is that, since the death of her grandfather and mother, she and the defendants have enjoyed the property in common, but that she has never been excluded from the common possession and enjoyment. Hence her cause of action arises from the date of her exclusion or dispossession, and not from the date when her share became deliverable on the death of the person to whom the property originally belonged. In I. L. R, 15 M, 57, it was held, that Article 127 does not apply and that plaintiff had never obtained any distribution of her share. In I. L. R, 15 M, 60, the suit was for partition, and participation in the possession and enjoyment of the property was not alleged. In both these cases it was held that Article 123 applied. The decision reported at I. L. R, 12 M, 487 was not referred to and it does not appear that any objection was taken on the ground that the parties sued were not the lawful personal representatives of the deceased. We would reply to the Division Bench that this case is governed by Article 144, Schedule II of the Limitation Act.