Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (July 3, 1902) reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshaya (Aug. 2, 1898) and dismissing the appellants suit with costs. The properties in suit were the villages of Keharipur, otherwise called Chuck Haripur, and Kharam Kuri, granted by one Hemlata Chowdhrani to Makunda Chandra Bhowmick on a putni tenure by deed dated August 8, 1837. Makunda Chandra Bhowmick was the predecessor in title of the respondents. The original owner of the villages in suit was Krishna Sander Roy, who in the year 1817 executed a deed empowering his widow Hemlata Chowdhrani to adopt a son. He died soon after, and the widow adopted Gour Sunder Roy, who died in the year 1834. His widow Brajeswari Chowdhrani, in pursuance of a power given her, adopted Banwari Lal in the year 1846. Hemlata Chowdhrani died in the year 1848, and Brajeswari in 1894. Law. Rep. 32 Ind. App. 80 ( 1904- 1905) Rai Banomali Roy Bahadur V. Jagat Chundra Bhowmick 13 Brajeswari was in possession of the properties in suit till 1894 by arrangement with Banwari, as detailed in their Lordships judgment. The suit was brought in 1897 by the appellant as the adopted son of Banwari, who attained his majority in 1856 and died in 1880. The plaint claimed to recover possession of the pro perties in suit with mesne profits, urging that on the death of Brajeswari the respondents tenure was either void or voidable. The respondents pleaded limitation, and that the putni tenure granted in 1837 under which they held was valid. The Subordinate Judge held that the plaintiffs cause of action arose on the death of Brajeswari Chowdhrani, and that the putni lease in suit having been granted by Hemlata Chowdhrani, whose interest in the estate was limited, was not binding on the plaintiff. The High Court, on the contrary, held that the lease granted by Hemlata Chowdhrani was on the plaintiffs contention either void or voidable, and that in either case Brajeswari Chowdhrani or Banwari Lal could have sued to avoid it, and were bound to have instituted such suit at latest within twelve years of Hemlata Chowdhranis death or of the date that Banwari Lal attained majority. It also decided that there was sufficient evidence to shew that the said lease was granted under circumstances of legal necessity of a nature to bind the subsequent possessors of the estate. Asquith K.C., and C. W. Arathoon, for the appellant, contended that the suit was not barred by limitation. The cause of action arose on Brajeswaris death, and was affected by the twelve years period see Srish Chandra Roy v. Banomali Roy (( 1904) L. R. 31 Ind. Ap. 107.), Shumbhomath Shaha v. Bunwaree Lal Roy (( 1869) 11 Suth. W. R. 102.), and Bunwari Lal Roy v. Mahima Chandra, (( 1870) 4 Beng. L. R. Ap. 86.) Hemlata had at least power under the anumati patra of her husband to grant a putni lease for the life of Brajeswari. Otherwise Banwari by his agreement with his adoptive mother Brajeswari ratified it to that extent. There was no cause of action in the events which had happened to set it aside until Brajeswaris death. If legal necessity was relied upon as shewing that the grant was absolute it was for the respondents to prove it, and this they had not done, and could only fall back upon the recital to that effect contained in their putni lease. But see Sham Sunder Lal v. Achhan Kinwar (( 1898) L. R. 25 Ind. Ap. 183.), which shews that this recital is not sufficient. De Gruyther, for the respondents, contended that the lease to them was valid, both on the ground that Hemlata had full power to make it, and also that a case of justifying necessity had been made out. The recital in the lease was prima facie evidence of it, shifting to the appellant the duty of disproving it see Hunooman Persaud Panday v. Munraj Koonweree. (( 1856) 6 Moores Ind. Ap. Ca. 393, 414, 423.) The suit was barred by lapse of time. The cause of action arose on Hemlatas death in 1848, and was barred by the then law of Regulation II. of 1803 and Regulation II. of 1805 prescribing twelve years. Banwari might have sued in 1856 on attaining majority, and was barred by Act XIV. of 1859. Brajeswari might have sued, but both she and Banwari elected by arrange ment between themselves to ratify the respondents holding under his putni and accepted their rent. Arathoon replied. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DAVEY. Banwari might have sued in 1856 on attaining majority, and was barred by Act XIV. of 1859. Brajeswari might have sued, but both she and Banwari elected by arrange ment between themselves to ratify the respondents holding under his putni and accepted their rent. Arathoon replied. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD DAVEY. The material facts of this case are as follows. In the early part of the last century Krishna Sunder Roy was the owner of certain zemindaris. Shortly after his death his widow Hemlata Chowdhrani, under a power given to her by Krishna Sunder Roy, adopted Gour Sunder Roy, who was in possession of the estate until his death in February, 1834. Gour Sunder Roy also died childless, and Law. Rep. 32 Ind. App. 80 ( 1904- 1905) Rai Banomali Roy Bahadur V. Jagat Chundra Bhowmick 14 his widow Brajeswari succeeded him as his heiress. By an anumati patra executed by Gour Sunder Roy shortly before his death he empowered his widow, with the consent of his mother Hemlata, to adopt a son. This document contains expressions of confidence in Hemlata, in whose name the properties were registered, and directed that her name should continue to stand registered and she should have control as long as she lived. In the year 1846 Brajeswari, under the power given to her by her late husband, adopted Banwari Lal Roy, who thereupon became the heir and successor in title of his adoptive father Gour Sunder Roy. Hemlata died in the year 1848. On August 8, 1837, Hemlata purported to grant to Makunda Chandra Bhowmick certain mouzahs, including Kharamkuri, Chuck Haripur, and Banomalikuri (the two former of which are the properties now in suit) on a permanent putni tenure in consideration of the payment of Rs. 1000 and of an annual rent of Rs. 351. The kobala contains a statement that the zemindari had then been put up (i.e., advertised) for sale six days later for arrears of the sudder revenue, and the grantor was unable to secure money to pay the entire sudder revenue, and the zemindari could not be saved unless the revenue was paid. Banwari Lal attained his majority in or about the year 1856. Banwari Lal attained his majority in or about the year 1856. By an ekrarnama dated August 12, 1857, it was agreed that a 10-annas share of the estates should remain in Banwari Lals khas possession and a 6-annas share should remain in the possession of Brajeswari for her life. The copy of this instrument, executed by Brajeswari, contains the following passage, according to the amended translation given in the judgment of the High Court— "With regard to any permanent settlement that Hemlata Chowdhrani, during the period of her possession, made beyond her own powers, the expenses that may be incurred in your setting it aside, you shall pay such expenses on account of the mehals included in your saham, and you shall enjoy the whole profits of the same, and I shall pay the expenses incurred on account of the mehals included in the saham possessed by me, and, according to the conditions made above, I shall get the entire profits of the same till the end of my life." The ekrarnama was followed by a butwara or partition. The mouzah Banomalikuri was allotted to Banwari Lal, and the mouzahs in suit to Brajeswari. Banwari Lal subse quently took forcible possession of mouzah Banomalikuri, and the putnidars appear to have acquiesced in his so doing. The exact date on which this resumption took place is left in some obscurity on the evidence, but their Lordships see no reason to dissent from the finding of the High Court that it was shortly after the execution of the partition. An apportioned rent of Rs. 242 odd appears to have been paid to Brajeswari in respect of the mouzahs in suit until her death, which took place on July 10, 1894. Banwari Lal died in 1880, and was succeeded in title by his adopted son and heir, the present appellant. The respondents are the successors in title of Makunda Chandra Bhowmick, the original putnidar. The present suit was commenced by the appellant on September 13, 1897, to recover from the putnidars mouzahs Kharamkuri and Chuck Haripur. The material issues were the second Is the plaintiffs suit barred by limitation ? and the fifth Is the lease binding on the plaintiff? The respondents are the successors in title of Makunda Chandra Bhowmick, the original putnidar. The present suit was commenced by the appellant on September 13, 1897, to recover from the putnidars mouzahs Kharamkuri and Chuck Haripur. The material issues were the second Is the plaintiffs suit barred by limitation ? and the fifth Is the lease binding on the plaintiff? The Subordinate Judge held that the cause of action arose only on the death of Brajeswari, and that the putni in suit having been granted by Hemlata, whose interest in the estate was limited, was not binding on the appellant. In accordance with these findings he made a decree, dated August 2, 1898, in Law. Rep. 32 Ind. App. 80 ( 1904- 1905) Rai Banomali Roy Bahadur V. Jagat Chundra Bhowmick 15 favour of the appellant for recovery of the properties in suit, with mesne profits and costs. On appeal by the respondents, the High Court of Bengal reversed this decree, and by their decree dated July 3, 1902, the appellants suit was dismissed with costs. Hence this appeal. The learned judges differed from the Subordinate Judge in both of the grounds on which his decree was based. They held that the suit should have been instituted at latest within twelve years of the date on which Banwari Lal attained his majority. The learned judges also held that there was sufficient prima facie evidence, which had not been rebutted, to shew that the putni had been granted under such circumstances of legal necessity as would make it binding on subsequent owners of the estate, in accordance with the judgment of this Board in Hunooman Persaud v. Munraj Koonweree. (6 Moores Ind. A p. Ca. 393.) Their Lordships will shortly state their reasons for agreeing with the learned judges that the suit is barred by limitation. Hemlata had no estate in the property in question. On the most favourable view for the appellant she granted the putni as manager of the estate for Brajeswari, the then legal owner. If the putni was void, the period of limitation ran from the date on which it was granted under Regulation II. of 1803, as amended by Regulation II. of 1805, which was then in force. On the most favourable view for the appellant she granted the putni as manager of the estate for Brajeswari, the then legal owner. If the putni was void, the period of limitation ran from the date on which it was granted under Regulation II. of 1803, as amended by Regulation II. of 1805, which was then in force. But if it was voidable only by Brajeswaris successor, the right of action arose on the adoption of Banwari Lal, and time would begin to run against him from the date when he attained his majority in 1856. Under either Regulation II. of 1803 or Act XIV. of 1859 time ran from the date when the cause of action arose. As their Lordships are of opinion that the suit is barred by limitation, it is not necessary to express an opinion on the question whether the putni was in law binding on the appellant. But their Lordships must not be understood as throwing any doubt on the soundness of the principle Laid down in the case of Hunooman Persaud v. Munraj Koonweree. (6 Moores Ind. Ap. Ca. 393.) It remains only to notice an argument addressed to their Lordships to the effect that the proper inference from the facts proved was that a new agreement in the nature of a compromise was made between Banwari Lal and the putnidars that Banomalikuri should be resumed by Banwari Lal, and the putnidars should be allowed to retain Kharamkuri and Chuck Haripur on a new tenure at the apportioned rent for the life of Brajeswari. The short and sufficient answer is that there is no evidence of any such new agreement. Tarak Chandra Bhowmick, one of the original defendants, in his evidence says that they had been in possession of the property in putni right since 1244 ( 1837) under the kobala executed by Hemlata, and he was not asked any question in cross-examination as to the supposed new agreement, and no issue was settled respecting it. The proper inference from the receipt by Brajeswari of a reduced rent after the petition between her and Banwari Lal is that it was an apportioned rent agreed to between her and the putnidars. Their Lordships will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs of it.