Devadoss, J.

1. The first point urged in this second appeal is that the lower Courts were wrong in re-trying the whole case as the judgment of the High Court cannot be said to have upset the concurrent findings of two Courts. This contention is untenable in view of the clear wording of the judgment of the High Court As the discussion on the question of adverse possession has proceeded on a wrong view of the law, we think the safe course is to reverse the judgments of the Courts below and remind the suit to the Court of first instance for disposal in the light of our observations.

2. It is clear from this that the learned Judges who decided the second appeal set aside the judgments of both the lower Courts and directed the case to be re-tried.

3. The next point urged is that the purchase in the name of one brother was for benefit of the whole family and the property purchased should not be considered as the sole property of the person in whose name the sale was taken. As the learned Judge observes, it is not proper to apply the principles governing the Hindu joint family system to a Mahomedan family. The plaintiff and defendant 1 are brother and sister. Their father died in 187