FACTS :- The patties to the suit are represented in the following genealogical table :

One Jijibhai had two sons, Tribhovan and Kashibhai. Tribhovan who died before 1914 had a son Mathurbhai who died in 1924 leaving a son Punjabhai. The Deputy Nazir was appointed as the guardian of Punjabhai on 29th November 1924, and he went into possession of the family property in 1925. Punjabhai attained majority in 1929. Punjabhai died in 1931 leaving two sons Natvarlal and Kavjibhai (defendants 1 and 2). The Deputy Nazir was appointed as the guardian of the property of defendants 1 and 2. Kashibhai died in 1914 leaving a son Shantserbhai and a daughter Ruxmani. Shankerbhai died in 1922 issueless, leaving a widow Kashibai (defendant 3). Ruxmani died leaving two sons, Dadubhai and Rajnikant (plaintiffs 1 and 2).

Defendant 3 filed a suit in 1926 alleging that she had adopted one Shivabhai in 1924 and claimed that he was entitled to half the share in the joint family property and for partition and possession. This suit was dismissed in 1927, the Court holding that the adoption was invalid.

Ruxmani filed a suit in 1930 for a declaration that she was the next reversioner of Shankarbhai and also for a declaration that there was a severance of joint status in 1913 between Mathurbhai and Kashibhai. The suit went in appeal to the High Court which gave a declaration to Ruxmani that there was a severance of joint status in 1913 and Mathurbhai and Shankerbhai continued to be in possession of the joint family property as tenants-in-common.

The plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants on 22nd September 1941, for partition and separate possession of their one half share in the properties in the hands of defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiffs contended that they were the next reversioners of Shankarbhai, that Shankarbhai was entitled to half the property on the severance of the joint status in 1913, that Kashibai, his widow, succeeded to him. and was entitled to the property in her right as a widow, that she surrendered her interest in the property as a widow by a deed of surrender, that succession opened up immediately on the execution of the deed of surrender on 30th January 1941, and that they were entitled to their half share in the property which was in the hands of the Deputy Nazir who was the guardian, of the property of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 contended that there was no severance, that on the death of Shankarbhai, Mathurbhai became the sole surviving coparcener, that Punjabhai succeeded him, and after him, defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to the possession of the whole of the joint family property.

The trial Judge decreed the plaintiffs suit, observing as follows in his judgment :

"The question, therefore, that arises for determination is whether the plaintiffs are postponed in spite of the surrender in their favour from getting possession of Shankarbhais half share till after Bai Kasfais death In case adverse possession against her is proved. In my opinion the surrenderees are not so postponed since their light to possession arises immediately on surrender in their favour and they are not affected by the circumstance of adverse possession, if any, existing against the widow. Indeed in the case reported in AIR (22) 1935 Mad p. 664 cited for the defence it is observed that the effect of a surrender is practically that of a conveyance, that if the widow conveys her life estate to an alienee he (the alienee) evidently cannot be in a better position than the widow that adverse possession against her in that case be relied upon by the person in possession against the alienee and that, therefore, adverse possession against the widow in a case of surrender or of divesting her of the estate on remarriage would and ought to continue till her life-time and more so when there is no article similar to Art. 141, Limitation Act providing for the case of a surrender or the case of divesting of the estate on remarriage but in a sim