JUDGMENT :- The plaintiffs have filed this second appeal against the appellate decree dated 23-1-52 of the District Judge reversing that of the Munsiff, Manipur dated 21-8-51 (in his T.S. No. 507 of 1950) decreeing the plaintiffs suit for possession of land under patta No. 2/247. N as reversioners. 2. The plaintiffs case is that they are the sons of Mantri Singh, a full brother of Mera Singh father of Mukho Singh, the last male-holder of the lou under patta No. 2/247. N and as such entitled to get its possession as reversioners after the death of Thaballei Devi, widow of Mukho Singh who held the land as life interest and Angaobi Devi, his mother, who had remarried. The defendant denies the claim of the plaintiffs by saying that he had purchased the land in dispute from Thaballei Devi widow and Angaobi Devi mother of Mukho Singh after his death on 8-7-1935 by means of a registered deed and has been in its possession since then. 3. There is no dispute between the parties on the following three points and in fact counsel of both the parties agree to it (a) that the above sale took place without obtaining any sale certificate as required by law of the State and thus it is void, (b) that the last male-holder of the land in dispute was Mukho Singh, (c) that the plaintiffs are his (Mukho Singhs) first cousins. The only point of contention between the parties is of limitation for the suit. It is argued on behalf of the plaintiffs that according to Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act the period of limitation for filing the above suit is 12 years from the death of Thaballei Devi widow of the last male-holder and failing that, S. 209 of the Hindu Law applies to the case when no limitation was prescribed in the State for such suits. The defendant-respondents counsel has argued that the Indian Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to the case inasmuch as it has been enforced in the State on 16th April 1950 and the cause of action had arisen much earlier than that i.e., about 6½ years before. 4. The defendant-respondents counsel has argued that the Indian Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to the case inasmuch as it has been enforced in the State on 16th April 1950 and the cause of action had arisen much earlier than that i.e., about 6½ years before. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has frankly admitted that there has been no special provision for limitation in the State for such suits, before the coming into force of the Indian Limitation Act on 16th April 1950, though usually according to him such suits used to be filed within three years. On such a ground, it is not possible to hold that the limitation period for such suits was three years before the integration. In fact there was no law of limitation in the State then. To find out limitation for the present suit therefore, we have to fall back on Hindoo Law, Sec. 209 of which runs as follows : "REVERSIONERS SUIT FOR POSSESSION AND LIMITATION :- A suit by reversioners, entitled to succeed to the estate on the death of a widow or other limited heir, for possession of immoveable property from an alienee from her must be brought within twelve years from her death". This period tallies with Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act. Further the Indian Limitation Act 1908 was made applicable to the State from 16th April 1950 by virtue of the Merged States (Laws) Act 1949 and Sec. 3 of the Part C States (Laws) Act, 1950. The present suit was filed on 27-10-50 i.e., about 6 months after that. There was no provision for any limitation for the title suit in the State before the Indian Limitation Act came in force. Under the circumstances, therefore, Article 141 of the Indian Limitation Act applies. It has been held in MAHOMED AFZAL v. DIN MAHAMMAD, ILR (1946) Lah 300 : AIR (34) 194Y Lah (CN 25) 117 that "The law of limitation applicable is the law in force at the date of the suit." 5. Both the courts below have found that the widow Thaballei Devi could not alienate her husbands property without getting a certificate of sale from the proper authority as required by the law of the State and as such the sale in favour of the defendant is ineffectual and void. With this finding I concur. Both the courts below have found that the widow Thaballei Devi could not alienate her husbands property without getting a certificate of sale from the proper authority as required by the law of the State and as such the sale in favour of the defendant is ineffectual and void. With this finding I concur. I have already held that the suit is within time. The sale having been declared void, the plaintiffs first cousins of the last male holder Khomei (Mukho?) Singh, husband of Thaballei Devi as reversioners are now entitled to get possession of the land in suit after the death of the widow who had only life interest in it. 6. In the result this appeal is allowed with costs. The decree passed by the District Judge in appeal is reversed and that passed by the Munsiff in this case is confirmed. Appeal allowed.