JUDGMENT
Banerji, J.
1. This was a suit for possession of property left by one Madho, who has been found to have been separate from the other members of his family. It has also been found that the property in question was Madho’s separate property and was acquired by him. Madho died in 1899, leaving a widow, Musammat Ratni, who died on March 26th, 1911. The plaintiff, Sadho, is the brother of Madho and as such is entitled to succeed to the property after the widow’s death. The appellants vendor, Ram Ratan, appears to have been in possession after the death of Madho and it is claimed on his behalf that Ram Ratan’s possession since the death of Madho bars the claim of the plaintiff. The person who was entitled to possession upon the death of Madho, was his widow, Musammat Ratni. Adverse possession against the widow had the effect of extinguishing the widow’s right and vesting it in the person who was in adverse possession.. That right come to an end on the death of the widow and, therefore, the reversioner became entitled to possession on the widow’s death. It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Runchordas v. Parvatibai 23 B. 725; 26 I.A. 71 that adverse possession against the widow is not adverse possession against the reversioners; and this case has been followed by this Court in Amrit Dhar v. Bindesri Prasad 23 A. 448; A.W.N. (1901) 133 and Jhamman Kunwar v. Tiloki. 25 A. 435; A.W.N. (1903) 93. The plea of limitation, therefore, has been rightly overruled. It is next contended that as the name of the appellant’s vendor was entered in the revenue papers, he is protected by the principle of the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act. It is not asserted on his behalf that he made any inquiry other than an inquiry as to the entry of names in the revenue papers. If he had made further inquiry, he could easily have discovered that the property belonged to Madho and that his own vendor had no title to convey an absolute estate to him. He cannot, therefore, claim that the plaintiff was estopped from asserting the right, which, undoubtedly, existed in him. I dismiss this appeal.
