( 1 ) THIS is a Second Appeal arising out of a suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant and the plaintiff-respondent for possession of certain properties against the defendants-respondents.

( 2 ) THE property in suit admittedly belonged, once upon a time, to one Dharam Singh. The plaintiff-appellant came to the Court with the allegation that, after the death of Dharam Singh, there was a partition between his sons and this property came to the separate share of Indar singh so that Indar Singh became the sole owner of this property. Indar Singh having died, the plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to possession of this property as daughters of Indar singh who died leaving no sons or widow. The defendants respondents are all collaterals of indar Singh and they, or some of them, would be the reversioners of Indar Singh on the death of the two plaintiffs. Both the lower Courts have held that there had been a partition by virtue of which Indar Singh had become the sole owner of the property in suit. A further objection of the defendants-respondents that there had been a re-union between Indar Singh and his brothers was also repelled by the Courts below.

( 3 ) THE trial Court decreed the suit in toto but the lower appellate Court modified the decree and granted a decree in respect of only half share in the property on the ground that the plaintiff-respondent, Shrimati Javitri, had made a statement that she did not want any decree in her favour. It is against this part of the decree that the other plaintiff, Shrimati Ram Kali, has filed this appeal claiming that, even if Shrimati Javitri did not ask for decree in respect of her share, a decree for possession in respect of the whole property should have been passed in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, Shrimati Ram Kali. With this appeal there is a cross objection filed on behalf of the defendant respondent challenging the finding that Indar Singh had become the sole owner of this property under a partition and also challenging the finding that there had been no re-union between Indar Singh and other members of the family. The question whether there was a partition between Indar singh and the defendants respondents or their predecessors as also the question whether there had been a re-union are both questions of fact and the learned counsel has not been able to show how these questions can be reagitated in this Second Appeal in which the findings of fact by the lower appellate Court have to be accepted and only questions of law can be gone into. The cross-objection, therefore, fails.

( 4 ) SO far as the appeal is concerned the view taken by the lower appellate Court is that the decree for the whole share of Indar Singh in favour of Shrimati Bam Kali was not justified on the ground that Shrimati Javitri did not claim any share which meant that she had relinquished her share. The learned Judge of the lower Court went on to state that it did not appear from, her (Shrimati Javitris) statement in whose favour she had relinquished her share. But, in any case, it was not in favour of Shrimati Ram Kali and consequently the latter could not got a decree in respect of her share. In arriving at this decision, it is clear that the learned Civil Judge did not properly consider the effect of the relinquishment by Shrimati Javitri. The property was found by the learned Civil Judge himself to be jointly owned by Shrimati Ram kali and Shrimati Javitri as holders of life-estates. On the death of either of them, the whole of the life-estate was to pass to the other. In such a case, if there is relinquishment by one without specifying in whoso favour the relinquishment takes effect the right to the property would naturally pass to the other joint owner. A trespasser in possession without any right cannot claim that, because one joint owner has relinquished her right, the trespasser is entitled to continue in possession of that share. The defendants-respondents are, no doubt, reversion