( 1 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Sri Sripat Narain Singh, learned advocate for the appellant, has raised two contentions in this appeal. The first is that Article 47 of the Indian limitation Act did not apply to a suit for joint possession while his second contention is that the lower appellate court went wrong in observing that the right of the plaintiff as a bhumidhar was extinguished or that the defendant had become a sole bhumidhar.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the plaintiff claimed relief for a joint possession as a co-bhumidhar of the land in dispute on the allegations that the plots were joint tenancy of the parties from the time of their ancestors and that the parties became joint Bhumidhars of these plots on the enforcement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. In the former litigation between the parties the revenue court held that the plaintiff was a joint tenant and as wrong entries continued the present suit was brought. The defence was that the defendant was the sole bhumidhar and in any case the suit was barred by limitation.

( 3 ) BOTH the courts below have held that Rajab All and Kalut, were joint tenants of the plots in dispute. The trial court further held that the parties were co-bhumidhars but the court passed a decree in favour of the appellant only for joint possession and not for an injunction. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that the present suit having been filed more than three years after the orders in proceedings under Section 145 Cr. P. C. the suit was barred by limitation. It has further been observed towards the close of the judgment that the plaintiff is not a co-bhuraidhar while the defendant is the sole bhumidhar. It is against these findings that the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff and two contentions have been raised on behalf of the appellant.

( 4 ) SO far as the question of bar of limitation under Artcle 47 of the Limitation Act goes the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the cases of Bhaguji v. Aniaba, ILR 5 Bom. 25 and Jogesh Chandra v. Suresh Chandra 163 Ind Cas 370 (Cat) and contended that Article 47 has no application to cases of co-sharers. Both these cases have been discussed in the Calcutta case of Khaleque Newaz Khan v. Labibuddin Ahmad Siddique, AIR 1943 Cal 67. The Division bench of the Calcutta High Court held that the suit for joint possession by a co-owner, bound by an order passed under Section 145, Cr. P. C. maintaining the exclusive possession of one co-owner is governed by Article 47 of the Limitation Act. That court further held that failure to institute a suit within three years of that order entails the extinguishment of his right, whatever the nature of the right may have been by reason of Section 28, Limitation Act. A learned single judge of this court in the case of Mt. Jaidevi Kuari v. Dakshini Din, AIR 1937 All 300 held that the phraseology of Section 28 and Article 47 of the Limitation Act is clear and unambiguous. If a co- sharer, against whom an order under Section 145 Cr. P. C. has been passed fails to bring a suit within the period of three years, his right to the property or possession thereof is extinguished by virtue of Section 28 of the Limitation Act. It was further observed at page 303 that the right which is extinguished is the right which the person against whom the order is passed had in the property, whether the right be as a sole owner or the right be to have joint possession with the person in whose favour the order is passed. I with respect agree with this view. The Judicial Commissioner of Nagpur also took a similar view in the case of Jagat Ram v. Pitai, AIR 1930 Nag 142.

( 5 ) IT was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the expression "to recover the property used in Article 47 of the Indian Limitation Act envisages a right to claim exclusive possession and not a right to recover joint possession. I do not find any g