Possession of one co-owner or heir is deemed possession of all; mere management of a family endowment by the eldest branch, including collection of income, does not constitute adverse possession or ouster unless a clear denial of other heirs' rights is proven.

Sir George Rankin.:-

This appeal arises out of a partition suit brought on 3rd August 1928, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Azamgarh by one Ram Rup son of Ram Narain a Hindu governed by the Mitakshara. Ram Rup, the plaintiff, died in 1936 and is now represented by his son and grandson. At the date of the suit, his father and all his brothers were dead and he impleaded as defendants 1 to 6 the sons and widows of his brothers. The widow of one brother who had died in 1915 was not impleaded but need not be further mentioned. Defendant 1 is the son of his eldest brother Bhairon and is the appellant before the Board. The plaintiff averred that he and his nephews were members of a joint Hindu family of which Bhairon until his death in 1927, and thereafter the appellant, had been karta. He pleaded that on 4th August 1927 the various members of the family had by a deed dated 4th August 1927 agreed to come to a partition and nominated arbitrators for the purpose; and that these arbitrators had carried out this work in part though they had not effected any division of the houses, when on 23rd July 1928 they withdrew from their task. The plaintiff joined as defendants certain persons who were alleged to be debtors to the joint family upon allegations which it is no longer necessary to consider. He also included a claim to be one of the managers of a private family idol-Sri Thakurji defendant 10-which was possessed of an 8 annas share in a village called Asni.

The present appellant resisted the suit saying that the family had not been joint since 1916, that the deed of 4th August 1927, which recited that they were joint was fictitious, that the books of account and cash of the family were with the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff, was not a "mutwalli" of the endowed property in Asni. Both Courts in India have disbelieved the appellant, have rejected his case and have found in favour of the plaintiff. They have held the deed of 4th August 1927, to be genuine, that the family was at that date joint, that the arbitrators' partition so far as it went was fair and reasonable, and that the appellant is liable to render accounts. They have directed a partition of the houses into five shares - one going to Mt. Manaki, the sonless widow of the plaintiff's brother Bindeshri, as provided in the deed of 4th August 1927. Upon all these matters, Mr. Parikh learned counsel for the appellant concedes that he cannot press this appeal and their Lordships are only concerned with them so far as to express their opinion that in view of the concurrent findings learned counsel has exercised his discretion very properly.

Upon one point however this appeal has been urged. It is not a point taken at any stage of the proceedings in either of the Indian Courts but, as it is a point of limitation, it is prima facie admissible even in a Court of last resort. It has reference to the claim of the plaintiff to be a "mutawalli" of the property dedicated to Sri Thakurji, and it is founded upon the fact that in the revenue papers the property was recorded as belonging to Sri Thakurji "under the supervision of Bhairon." On this it is now contended that the plaintiff had been out of possession for a time sufficient to bar him from recovering in this suit of 1928 possession of his share in the office of mutwalli or of his share in the endowed property. On either of these views as to the nature of his claim he would be barred by twelve years adverse possession under Art. 124 or Art. 144 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 ((1900) 23 Mad 271 : 27 IA 69 : 10 MLJ 29 : 7 Sar 671 (PC), Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi v. Velu Pandaram ).

This part of the plaintiff's claim was put forward in the plaint on the footing that the plaintiff was in possession to the extent of his right-that is, of a one-fifth share; and that he desired a declaration to that effect. The learned Subordinate Judge thought that the proper form of declaration was "that the plaintiff along with othe