J.C. SHAH, J.
1. One Amar Singh resident of Bhurchi in District Sheikhupura (now in Pakistan) died many years ago leaving him surviving his wife Hukmi and his son Buta Singh. Buta Singh married Nand Kaur and by her he had a daughter Gian Kaur. Buta Singh died in 1930, leaving behind him surviving his mother Hukmi, his wife Nand Kaur and his infant daughter Gian Kaur. On the death of Buta Singh his estate devolved upon his widow Nand Kaur. In 1945, Nand Kaur contracted a remarriage and it is common ground that she forfeited her right to hold the estate of Buta Singh. Gian Kaur was then a minor and the estate of Buta Singh was entered in the name of Hukmi in the revenue records. In 1947, Hukmi and Gian Kaur migrated to and took up residence in India. Gian Kaur filed an action in the civil court in 1956 against Hukmi for a decree for possession of the estate of her father Buta Singh which she claimed on the remarriage of Nand Kaur had devolved upon her.
2. The trial court dismissed the suit and the decree was confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Amritsar. The case was taken in second appeal to the High Court of Punjab. The High Court awarded to Gian Kaur a decree for possession of the estate of her father.
3. In this appeal by special leave against the order of the High Court it is contended by the legal representatives of Hukmi (she having died after the institution of the suit) that the claim of Gian Kaur was at the date of the suit barred by the law of limitation. In our opinion there is no substance in that contention. Recalling the sequence of events, it is clear that the right of Gian Kaur arose in 1945 when her mother contracted remarriage, and the suit was filed in 1956. Before she remarried, Nand Kaur was the owner of the property; as a widow she may have held a limited estate, but no other person had any interest in the estate of Buta Singh. When she remarried the estate devolved upon his nearest heir of her husband Buta Singh. It is common ground that the estate according to the law applicable to the parties devolved upon Gian Kaur. Gian Kaur was at that date a minor and the estate was entered in the revenue record in the name of Hukmi. We may assume that the estate continued to remain in the possession of Hukmi from the year 1945, and that she claimed the estate and the property received in exchange when she migrated to India adversely to Gian Kaur, but when the suit was filed in 1956, the period of twelve years prescribed by the Limitation Act. within which a suit for possession could be filed by Gian Kaur had not expired. The observation made by the learned Judge that a minor is entitled to a period of twelve years from date on which he or she attains the age of majority, if the cause of action to sue arises during minority is not correct, but the erroneous statement of the law has not resulted in the rejection of a just claim.
4. The appeal fails and is dismissed with cost.