JUDGMENT

1. The facts of this case are as follows: The land in suit was an occupancy holding that belonged to one Sheoambar. On his death it descended to his widow, Musammat Amrita. Her name was recorded as also that of Dhusai, her husband's brother, and Mahabir, her husband's sister's son, along with hers and this arrangement was agreed to and accepted by the Zemindar, Musammat Amrita died some two years before the suit and it appears that the names of Mahabir and Dhusai remained recorded. This suit was brought by Dhusai and two persons Pryag and Tahlu who are the sons of Sheonarain, who was the brother of Ram Charan, the father of Sheoambar. They sued for a decoration that Mahabir had no concern in the occupancy holding which they asserted belonged to them and they asked for a perpetual injunction against him. In the alternative they prayed for recovery of possession if it be proved that the plaintiffs were out of possession.

2. The main defence to the suit by Mahabir was that ha had been adopted by Sheoambir. That, however, has been found by both the Courts below against him, The Trial Court decreed the suit but in appeal the suit was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by