The legal point established in the judgment is that the decree under S.17 of the Arbitration Act furnishes the cause of action and legal title to enforce the arbitrators' award, and possession is not adverse when referable to a lawful title.

1. Does a divided member of a family obtaining possession of property in excess of his share, under an award of an Arbitrator, prescribe title by adverse possession in respect of that excess share, by being in possession for over twelve years from the date of the award or does the time run only from the date when the award was made a rule of court? This, in short, is the simple question that arises for determination in this Second Appeal.

2. The first defendant in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession is the appellant. The facts are admitted and the question of law alone remains for consideration. The plaintiff and the first defendant are members of the same family. In 1954, the family members entered into an agreement to refer to the arbitrators the division of the family properties. The Arbitrators passed an award in 1956, Ext.Al dated 25-5-1956. Pursuant to the award, the parties were given possession of their share of properties by the Arbitrators and in the process, the 1st defendant obtained some lands in excess of her share. That was in 1956. Sy.No.324/1, the red marked portion in Ext.C1 plan allotted to the plaintiff was handed over to the 1st defendant. She has been in the possession of this excess property from 1956 onwards. The award was filed in court and a decree in terms of the award was passed on 30-7-1962 (Ext.A2). In 1969, notices were issued to the plaintiff's mother and her brother by the Revenue Divisional Officer informing them that the Government would take over possession if the land was kept uncultivated. The plaintiff's mother informed the officer that the properties had not been demarcated and unless it was done, it was difficult for her to carry on cultivation. The Tahsildar thereafter, measured the property and fixed the boundary. The plaintiff's case is that while the measurement was being taken, defendants 1 and 2 with the help of the husband of the 1st defendant, put up a bund, obstructed the plaintiff in cultivating the land and therefore the plaintiff was compelled to file a suit under S.6 (now S.9) of the Specific Relief Act for possession. That suit was dismissed on 23-10-1971, but without any decision on title. Thereafter, the present suit was filed for recovery of possession on the strength of title on 20-12-1971.

3. The courts below have accepted the position that the 1st defendant got possession of the plaint disputed item in 1956 and she continued possession thereafter. On this finding, the appellant contends that she has perfected title by adverse possession and limitation and the plaintiff cannot thus recover possession from her. This plea was accepted by the trial court. However, in appeal, the Sub Court found that the title vested in the appellant only when the court pronounced judgment according to the award and when a decree followed on 30-7-1962 and the suit having been filed within 12 years from that date, the appellant did not perfect her title by any adverse possession. It is this judgment and decree that is challenged by the appellant.

4. The counsel for the appellant laid stress on the principle that possession under a mistaken impression that the land belonged to the claimant himself can give rise to a claim for adverse possession and relied on the following passage in Wood, Limitation of Actions, Volume 2, page 1276:-

"As to whether a party can set up an adverse possession to lands occupied by him under a mistake supposing the same to belong to him, when in point of fact they are outside of his real claim, the doctrine evidently is that, where a grantee, in taking possession under his deed, goes unintentionally and by mistake beyond his proper boundaries, and enters upon and actually occupies and improves lands not included in the deed, claiming and supposing it to be his, this occupation is to be deemed adverse within the meaning of the statute of limitation and, if continued the requisite length of time, will bar the right of the true own