JUDGMENT : Mohapatra, J. - This is a defendant's appeal arising out of a suit for declaration of title and for possession in respect of the disputed lands on the following circumstances: Krupasindhu was the original owner of the disputed property Who died leaving Hadibandhu (his son through his first wife) and Sara Dibya, the 2nd wife. Rahasmani, the present Defendant, is the daughter of Krupasindhu through Sara Dibya, the 2nd wife. Hadibandbu's son Gopal died as a bachelor in the early part of the year 937. Gopal's sister Nishsmani Is the Plaintiff in the present, suit. Sara died on 1-5-1952. The present Plaintiff being the sister of Gopal has brought the suit for declaration as the sister heir of Gopal. 2. It Is to be noted here that Act II of 1929 on the basis of which sisters have become heirs was introduced In the Ex. State of Mayurbhanj in the year 1949. Therefore, till the year 1949 the Plaintiff could not be a sister-heir. 3. The defence is that in fact the property in dispute is the Stridhan property of Sara and the Defendant being the daughter of Sara is a preferential heir. The defence makes out a case of Stridhan character of the disputed property in the way that Sara Was in possession of the property after the death of Gopal in the year 1937 for more than 12 years as absolute Owner and therefore by prescription obtained absolute right. 4. There Is no dispute over the position that Sara as was in possession of the property in dispute soon after the death of Gopal till her death on 1-5-1952. The suit was filed on 2-8-1952. The question that will determine the character of the right prescribed for is undoubtedly the animus of the prescriber at the Inception of his/her adverse possession; I am, therefore, to focus my attention to the facts of the case as to how the possession of Sara started. If really she had asserted her absolute right' from the inception, the position would be entirely otherwise and she would be prescribing for absolute title. 5. The character or animus of Sara at the inception of possession transpires from the documentary evidence of unimeachable character. If really she had asserted her absolute right' from the inception, the position would be entirely otherwise and she would be prescribing for absolute title. 5. The character or animus of Sara at the inception of possession transpires from the documentary evidence of unimeachable character. The lower appellate Court has based his finding on the fact that she possessed the disputed property from the very beginning as a limited owner relying on documents of unimpeachable character. Exts. 7 and 8 are orders of the Revenue Authorities of the State dated 7-9-1937. The order were passed on the application made by Sara to be recorded in the place of Gopal, the last male owner, as she is the grand-mother heir of Gopal. A distant agnate of Gopal was objecting. Nishamani, the present Plaintiff, who had not then been a preferential heir, of course had no locus standi then. The State authorities passed these orders to the effect that the applicant Sara comes 12th in the list of succession to the properties of Gopal and as such she would be recorded as the preferential heir of Gopal being the grandmother in law. Indeed they had lost sight of the position that a stepmother or a step-grandmother is no heir. On a mistaken view of law these orders were passed. But that does not affect the partinent question, which will determine the rights of the prescriber, because we are concerned with the animus. It may be that Sara was not the legal heir of Gopal, and as such her claim was adverse- from the very start. But nevertheless she claimed as the grandmother heir of Gopal. Undoubtedly under Hindu law, the mother or grand-mother would be entitled to a limited interest (which is known as Hindu widow's estate) and not to absolute interest. It transpires from the petition also (Ext. 6) that she was claiming as the grand-mother heir of Gopal. In my opinion, the learned lower appellate Court was perfectly justified in inferring from these documents that from the inception she was claiming a widow's estate, and, as such, she was prescribing for widow's estate. On the death of Sara therefore, her life estate lapses and the next heir of Gopal must come in, that is, the Plaintiff. In my opinion, the learned lower appellate Court was perfectly justified in inferring from these documents that from the inception she was claiming a widow's estate, and, as such, she was prescribing for widow's estate. On the death of Sara therefore, her life estate lapses and the next heir of Gopal must come in, that is, the Plaintiff. As there is no evidence on record to show that in fact she had been in possession of the disputed property as her Stridhan property for more than 12 years, she cannot In law prescribe for those rights and the property cannot be taken to be her Stridhan to be inherited by her daughter Rahasmani. 6. As to the proposition that the whole criterion for determining the character of the prescriber is the animus of the prescriber, there are quite a number of decisions settling the position of law. I will simply refer to a decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council reported in Lajwanti v. Safa Chand AIR 1924. P. Order 121-51 I. A. 171 corresponding to 51 Ind Appl. In. All the decisions were reviewed and the position was very well clarified as a settled proposition in a Bench decision of their Lordships of the Allahabad High Court reported in Gaya Deen Vs. Mst. Amrauti. There is no dispute Over the position that if Sara had, as a matter of fact, claimed absolute rights and on the basis of that claim she had matured her rights and not rights of a Hindu widow. But there being complete absence of such evidence in the present case, the conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate Court is bound to be confirmed and Is accordingly confirmed. 7. In conclusion, the appeal fails and is dismissed; but there will be no order as to costs of this Court. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed