OPINION 1. We agree with the decision in Umardaraz Ali Khan v. Wilayat Ali Khan (1897) I.L.R. 19 All. 169 where it is held that Article 123 applies only when the suit is for a share of an estate which it is the legal duty of the defendant to distribute, In the case of a Muhammadan dying intestate the estate is at once vested in the hairs as tenants in common and there is no one charged by law with its distribution, and as pointed out in Abdul Kader v. Aishamma (1891) I.L.R. 16 Mad. 61 it does not appear that in Patcha v. Mohidin (1892) I.L.R. 15 Mad. 60 or Kasmi v. Ayishamma (1892) I.L.R. 15 Mad. 57 there was any contention that the defendant was not the lawful personal representative of the deceased. In Patcha v. Mohidin (1892) I.L.R. 15 Mad. 60 the question whether Article 123 applied was not discussed or expressly decided but in Kasmi v. Ayishamma (1892) I.L.R. 15 Mad. 57 the learned Judges do apply Article 123 but, as we think, wrongly. 2. We think the answer to the question referred must be that Article 144 is applicable when the property is Immovable and Article 120 when it is moveable property. 3. The second appeal again came on for hearing before Benson and Krishnaswami Ayyar, JJ., after the expression of opinion of the Fall Bench, the Court delivered the following Case Note: Limitation Act, XV f 1877 Schedule II, Articles 120, 123, 144 - Period of Limitation applicable to suit by Muhammadan to recover his share of his deceased wifes estate. JUDGMENT Benson and Krishnaswami Ayyar, JJ. 4. The Full Bench has decided that Article 144 and not Article 123 of the Limitation Act applies. We cannot decide whether on the facts of this case the suit is barred under Article 144. In accordance with the opinion of the Full Bench, we reverse the decree of the lower Appellate Court and remand the case to the District Court for disposal according to law. The costs will be provided for in the revised decree.