( 1 ) THE suit lands originally belonged to one Shivprasad who died in 1986 leaving behind him his two widows, Bhanwar Kunwar Bai (plaintiff) and Rani Bai (defendant 1), as his only heirs.

( 2 ) IN 1951 Rani Bai brought a suit against Bhanwar Kunwar Bai alleging that the latter had remarried in 1944 and, therefore, had lost her rights in the suit property. In that suit she claimed a decree for possession against Bhanwar Kunwar bai who had been admittedly in possession of the entire property. On 17 March 1952 a decree for possession was passed in that suit in favour of Rani Bai. It appears that execution was taken out twice. The first execution was dismissed for default on 29 November 1952, and the second on 20 September 1954.

( 3 ) ON 3 July 1958, Bhanwar Kunwar Bai instituted the present suit against (1) Rani bai, (2) Swaroop Narain, and (3) Laxmi Narain; the latter two defendants being transferees for consideration for Rs. 5,500/, from Rani Bai. In this suit Bhanwar kunwar Bai asserts that Rani Bai had never been in possession of the suit lands, while she (plaintiff) has been in continuous and exclusive possession of the suit lands since the death of their husband. She further asserts that whatever rights rani Bai had acquired under the decree dated 17 March 1952, have been extinguished and the plaintiff has full rights, litle and interest in the suit lands and she is entitled to retain their possession. On that basis she claims a declaration that the defendants have got no right, title or interest in the suit lands and that she is entitled to retain her possession as a full owner. She further claims a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with her possession.

( 4 ) IN this suit, the trial Judge passed a decree for declaration of litle and permanent injunction in favour of Bhanwar Kunwar Bai. As the first appellate Court affirmed it, defendants 2 and 3 have preferred this second appeal.

( 5 ) IN my opinion, the suit is misconceived and must be dismissed. The position is plain enough. On Shivaprasad's death, in 1936, both the widows acquired title in the property to the extent of 1/2 each. It is common ground that Bhanwar Kunwar bai remained in actual possession of the property. That being so, her possession, in the eve of law, was possession on behalf of both the co-widows. This proposition is now well settled. See P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314: and Chhote Khan v. Mal Khan, 1955 SCR 60 : (AIR 1954 SC 575 ). Therefore, Rani Bai was at all lime entitled to her half share in the suit lands and had also the right of partition. That title and that right was acquired in consequence of Shiv Prasad's death as one of his natural heirs. In the previous suit it was in fact found that the mutation was in the joint names of the two widows; that the parties lived jointly; that the possession of the suit lands was joint: and that the possession remained joint till the institution of that suit. (That suit was instituted on 22 February 1950 and was decided on 17 March 1952, vide ex. D-26 ). This being the situation, it cannot be said that Rani Bai at any time lost her half share in the suit lands.

( 6 ) THE sheet anchor of the present suit is paragraph 6 of the plaint, where it is asserted that whatever Rani Bai acquired under the decree dated 17 March 1962 was extinguished, so that Bhanwar Kunwar Bai has full rights, interest and title in the suit lands and is entitled to retain possession of the entire lands. Shri Padhye's argument is that in the decree which was passed in the previous suit, all rights of rani Bai, including her own half share, merged in it, so that on the remedy of execution becoming time barred, Bhanwar Kunwar Bai became the full owner. Let me now examine what was it that Rani Bai got under the decree. To me it is quite plain that in that suit what Rani Bai essentially claimed was that Bhanwar Kunwar bai's half share in the suit property was e