Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J, : This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 3 to 8 from a decision of the High Court of Mysore passing a decree in favour of respondent No. 1 who was defendant No. 1 in the trial court, for possession of half the property which was the subject matter of the suit and also allowing future mesne profits.

2. The relevant facts are briefly these: The plaintiff who is the elder sister of the first defendant instituted a suit in the court of the District Judge, Bangalore for a declaration that she is the owner of half share in the properties described in the schedule to the plaint and for partition and separate possession of half share and for mesne profits. According to her the suit property was the absolute property of her mother Puttananjamma, and upon her death this property devolved on her and the first defendant as her mother s heirs. Since, according to her, the first defendant did not want to join her as co-plaintiff in the suit, she was joined as a defendant. It is common ground that the property, was in the possession of the second defendant R. S. Maddanappa, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and Gangavva the second wife of Maddanappa and her children. Maddanappa died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and his legal representatives are the other defendants to the suit. Briefly stated his defence, which is also the defence of the defendants other than defendant No. 1 is that though the suit properties belonged to Gowrarnma, the mother of Puttananjamma, she had settled them orally on the latter as well as on himself and that after the death of Puttananjamma he has been in possession of those properties and enjoying them as full owner. He further pleaded that it was the last wish of Puttananjamma that he should enjoy these properties as absolute owner. The plaintiff and the first defendant had, according to him expressly and impliedly abandoned their right in these properties, that his possession over the properties was adverse to them and as he was in adverse possession for over the statutory period, the suit was barred. Finally he contended that he had spent more than Rs. 46,000 towards improvements of the properties which was met partly from the income of his joint ancestral property and partly from the assets of the third defendant. These improvements, he alleged, were made by him bonafide in the belief that he had a right to the suit properties and consequently, he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act.

3. The first defendant admitted the claim of the plaintiff and also claimed a decree against the other defendant; in respect of her half share, in the suit properties. The other defendants, however, resisted her claim and in addition to that the second defendant has alleged in his written statement contended that she was estopped by her conduct from claiming any share in the properties.

4. The trial court decreed the claim of the plaintiff but held that the first defendant was estopped claiming possession of her half share in the properties left by her mother. The first defendant preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the correctness of the decision of the trial court. The other defendants also filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the decision of the trial court in favour of the plaintiff. It would appear that the plaintiff had also preferred some cross-objections. All the matters were heard together in the High Court which dismissed the appeal preferred by defendants Nos. 2 to 8 as well as the cross-objections lodged by the plaintiff but decreed the appeal preferred by the first defendant and passed a decree in her favour for possession of her half share in the suit properties, and future mesne profits against the remaining defendants. Defendants Nos. 2 to 8 applied for a certificate from the High Court under Articles 133 (1) (a) and 133(1) (c) in respect of the decree of the High Court in th