( 1. ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal against dismissal of their suit for possession and mesne profits by the Courts below.

( 2. ) IT is not in dispute that the deceased Malechha Kalar owned Kh. Nos. 46,79, 81/2,83 and 102, area 6. 67 acres in village Telin Satti, Tahsil Dhamtari, district Raipur. He died in the year 1937-38 leaving behind his widow Peelabai, the original defendant no. 2 who died during the pendency of the appeal before the lower appellate Court, and five daughters, i. e. Gomtibai, Godawaribai, Birambai, Brijbai and Radhabai. Out of the five daughters two were already married and the remaining three were living with their mother and they were minors at that time. Within one year Peelabai married Mangan younger brother of her deceased husband and she got the suit lands mutated in her name as Peelabai wife of Mangan. She alone remained in possession and cultivation thereof. Bhojraj, defendant No. 1, is the son born to Peelabai through Mangan. By registered sale-deed dated 10-2-1964, Peelabai transferred the suit lands to Bhojraj for a consideration of Rs. 2000/ -. By that time all the five daughters were married but they made a claim over the suit lands and the matter was amicably settled by Peelabai by paying Rs. 200/- to each of her four daughters and Bhojraj transferred 58 acres of land out of the suit lands to the other daughter Gomtibai. The present suit has been filed by the third and youngest daughters Birambai and Radhabai against Bhojraj, Peelabai and the remaining three daughters saying that since Peelabai remarried, she was divested of the snit lands which she inherited from her former husband and the same came to be inherited by the daughter. However, to defeat their claim, Peelabai transferred the suit lands to Bhojraj by a bogus sale-deed. They claimed possession and mesne profits. In their joint written statement Bhojraj and Peelabai contended that although Peelabai was divested of the suit lands on her re-marriage, she being in adverse possession since then, she has perfected title by adverse possession and the daughters have no right, title or claim over the same; besides all the daughters having settled their dispute with Peelabai, the present suit is not tenable. Their stand has been supported by defendants 3,4 and 5, gomtibai, Godawaribai and Brijbai. According to them, the daughters have no claim over the suit lands and in order to avoid any future dispute each of them were paid Rs. 200/- and the matter settled. The Courts below found that on the re-marriage Peelabai was divested of the suit lands which came to be inherited by the five daughters but peelabai has perfected her itle by adverse possession and, therefore, daughters have lost their claim over the same. So the suit has been dismissed.

( 3. ) THE following two substantial questions of law have been framed :

(1) Whether the finding regarding adverse possession is vitiated by non-consideration of the admissions of Mst. Peelabai? (2) Whether Mst. Peelabai could prescribe adverse possession of the suit property against her minor daughters?

( 4. ) THE Privy Council in Lachmeshwar Singh vs. Manwar Hussain (19 I. A. 48) has held that the question whether the possession is adverse or not, though often one of fact, may also be question of law or mixed question of law and fact. The Supreme Court in shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd vs. /. T. Commi. (1957 S. C. 49) has held -

"thus, for deciding whether the defendant has acquired title by adverse possession, the Court has firstly to find on an appreciation of the evidence what the facts are. So far, it is a question of fact. It has then to apply the principles of law regarding acquisition of title by adverse possession, and decide whether on the facts established by the evidence, the requirements of law are satisfied. That is a question of law. The ultimate finding on the issue must, therefore, be an inference to be drawn from the facts found, on the application of the proper principles of law