The possession of one co-sharer is considered the possession of all co-sharers, and to establish adverse possession, ouster of the non-possessing co-sharer must be proven.

ASTHANA, J. :- This is an appeal by the defendants from the judgement and decree of the learned Civil Judge of Agra decreeing the plaintiff-respondents' suit for partition of their half share in a shop situate in Kumari Bazar, Agra, fully described at the foot of the plaint.

2. A reference to the following pedigree would be convenient for under-standing the controversy between the parties :-

3. The plaintiffs, Shri Bhagwan and Mahabir Prasad, who are the son and grandson, respectively, of Babu Lal come to the court with the allegation that the shop in dispute was the joint ancestral property of Babulal and his elder brother Har Narain, it having devolved upon them on the death of Smt. Reoti Devi, their mother. It was further alleged that the shop in question was joint property of Smt. Reoti Devi's father Debi Das and her uncle Angan Lal. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the elder brother Har Narain, was a very clever person, while Babulal was a simple and easy going person and it was Har Narain, who cleverly manipulated transactions in order to claim the whole of the shop for himself by first fabricating a sale deed dated 18-6-1916 as having been executed by Smt. Reoti Devi, conveying half share in shop in dispute, and then a will allegedly executed by Smt. Reoti Devi on 2-5-1927 bequeathing the other half of the shop to him. The plaintiffs definitely alleged in the plaint that Smt. Reoti Devi did not execute either of these two documents and even if she executed them, she having no right or authority for conveying the property in dispute, which was ancestral and joint property of the parties, neither the sale deed nor the will affected the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs then alleged that at first Harnarain was managing the properties in dispute and realising rent and after his death his son Ram Swarup managed the properties but Babulal was being paid his share of profits by them. It was further alleged that after the death of Ram Swarup his widow Smt. Atar Devi and her sons Om Prakash, Prahlad and Lalla, who were the defendants, refused to pay the share of profits to the plaintiffs and refused to recognize that the latter were co-sharers and having right in the shop in dispute and on a demand having been made by the plaintiffs for rendering accounts and for partitioning the shop they refused, hence the suit for partition of their moiety share in the shop in dispute and for rendition of accounts.

4. The defendants resisted the suit on the pleas that the shop in dispute was the self-acquired property of Angan Lal, who gifted it to his niece Smt. Reoti Devi by executing a deed of gift dated 19-3-1912 and thus Smt. Reoti Devi became absolute owner of the shop in dispute and she had every right to transfer it as she wished; that on 18-6-1916 Smt. Reoti Devi executed a sale deed in respect of half share of the shop in favour of Harnarain who got his name mutated in the Municipal records and started realising rents. Then by a will dated 2-5-1927 Smt Reoti Devi bequeathed the other half share in the shop to Harnarain, thus, Harnarain became full owner of the shop in dispute and the plaintiffs had no share in it; that it was Harnarain and Ram Swarup and after their death Smt. Atar Devi, the widow of Ram Swarup, who always remained in possession of the shop in dispute to the exclusion of the plaintiffs and realised all the rent from the tenants in the shop without sharing the income with the plaintiffs; that Harnarain in 1943 executed a registered Tamliqnama in favour of Smt Atar Devi. his daughter-in-law, conveying absolutely the shop in dispute to her; that the plaintiffs had no right for asking for accounts of profits from the defendants and that in any view of the matter the defendants by their adverse possession extinguished the right and title of the plaintiffs, if any, in the shop in dispute.

5. Above then, briefly, are the main pleadings of the parties. The learned Civil Judge, trying the suit, framed a