JUDGMENT : CHAMIER, J. This was a suit for possession of property which, according to the plaintiff, belonged to his father Manik Chand. It appears that Manik Chand died in 1884, being at that time recorded as the sole owner of the property in suit. He left two widows, and mutation of names was effected in their favour. The survivor of the two widows, Muhammad Dharmi died in 1908, and the present suit was instituted in 1910. The first court held that the suit was barred by limitation under article 127 of schedule I to the Limitation Act. It is difficult to see how that article can be applied to the present case. On appeal the District Judge held that the suit was barred by limitation under article 142. He repelled the contention that the suit was governed by article 127 of schedule I. In the course of his judgment the learned Judge says:— “I find there is no evidence worthy of the name to prove that Manik Chand or his widow was ever in possession or that Manik Chand's possession continued until his death.” It seems to us that the District Judge overlooked the pleadings. The plaintiff alleged, that Manik Chand was separate owner of half the property. The defendants pleaded that they, along with Manik Chand, were in possession of the property. It has never been the case of the defendants that Manik Chand lost possession. All that they attempted to prove was that they and Manik Chand, were joint in estate and that they held possession along with Manik Chand. In these circumstances we must hold that the relevant article is No. 141. According to the now accepted view of article 141, it does not signify what persons were in possession between the death of Manik Chand and the death of the surviving widow Musammat Dharmi. Time began to run against the plaintiff from the death of Musammat Dharmi. As the other points in the case have not been decided, we allow the appeal; set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and remand the case to that court to be disposed of according to law.