Adverse possession against a co-owner can start from the date of knowledge of the sale of the entire house by one co-owner to a third party, even if the purchaser only purchased the share of the co-owner who sold it.

( 1 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I find no force in this appeal.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff appellant brought the suit for partition of his 1/3rd share in the house in dispute on the allegation that the house belonged to three brothers one of whom was Govind Madho. This Covind Madho made a gift of his 1/3rd share to Smt. Mahadevi and the plaintiff purchased this 1/3rd share from Smt. Mahadevi under a sale deed dated 2nd September 1954. One third share belonging to Basdeo was said to have been sold to Chhotelal defendant No. 1, while the rest of the one third share was said to have belonged to the other defendants. The suit was resisted by defendant No. 1 alone on various grounds including the plea of limitation.

( 3 ) THE trial court held that the plaintiff had no share in the house and that the suit was barred by limitation. The lower appellate court has differed from the trial court on the question of purchase of one third share by the plaintiff. That court has come to the conclusion that Mahadevi being the daughter of Govind Madho had one third share and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff had been validly executed. That court, however, came to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 had remained in adverse possession of the house and so on the question of limitation the finding of the trial court was affirmed. It is how the plaintiff has come in appeal.

( 4 ) SRI B. B. Avast hi, learned Advocate for the-appellant, has contended that the case being a case of co-owners it was for the defendant to prove ouster and a hostile title to the knowledge of the plaintiff before the plea of adverse possession could be accepted but this was not done. It is also his contention that even if Piarey lal husband of Smt. Mahadevi, who is transferor of the plaintiff had any knowledge of the sale in favour of Chhotelal, defendant No. 1, that could not be taken to be the knowledge of the co-owner. In support of his view the learned counsel has made a reference to the Full Bench case of Subahlal v. Fateh Muhammad, ILR 54 All 628 : (AIR 1932 all 393) and the case of Haider Husain v. Mohammad Subhan Khan, AIR 1940 All 429.

( 5 ) BEFORE discussing these authorities it may be stated that the lower appellate Court has found from the evidence of the parties that Basdeo, who had one third share in the house, had sold the entire house to Chhotelal, defendant No. 1 in 1938. It has also been found that since then chhotelal remained in exclusive possession of the house. Piareylal, husband at Smt. Mahadevii knew that Chhotelal defendant had purchased the house from Basdeo. But according to the statement of the witnessthis knowledge was that Basdeo sold only his share and not the entire house. It further appears from the statement of Piareylal, husband of Smt. Mahadevi, that chhotelal had carried out repairs and made some constructions in the house. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the acts of Chhotelal amounted to ouster of the other co-sharers and that Piareylal having knowledge of the acts of Chhotelal it must be deemed that the title of the other co-owner was denied. The question is whether the inference drawn by the lower appellate Court is or is not correct.

( 6 ) IN the Full Bench case of Subahlal, 1 ILR 54 All 628 : (A I R 1932 All 393) it has been observed at p. 643 (of ILR All) : (at p. 400 of AIR) that the underlying principle is that the possession by one co- owner of the entire joint property will be the possession of all. Such a possession may be referable to his legal title and may at the same time be referable to this adverse possession. The test which was laid down was whether the co-owners had actually any knowledge of the extent of the share transferred or whether, if they have no knowledge of the extent of the share transferred, a presumption may be drawn that the co-owner has transferred his own interest only and not the entire property. It was further observed that the mere fact that t