( 1. ) THE second plaintiff is the appellant in this appeal.

( 2. ) THE present suit was brought by one Ramjan All and the present appellant, Ishak Ali, claiming one-third share in the property left by one Shahbax Khan. The genealogy in so far as we are concerned is as follows : INAYAT KHAN

____________________________________|__________________________

_ | | | | | | | nage Khan Jainuddin Khan Salabat Khan Mohiuddin Khan Jahuranbi Sahuranbi Mulayambi

______________________|__________________ Lal Mohammad | | yakub Khan Shahbaz Khan | Jebanbi | Ninibi | md. Abid= Unhashi = Abbasali = Betulbi (Deft. 1)| ___________________|______ (Deft. 5) | | | ishaq Ali (?) | (Pltf. 2) (Pltf. 1) | | Yakub Ramjanali | | | ayub Mohammad Safl Mohammad (Deft. 2) (Deft. 3) (Deft. 4)

( 3. ) AFTER the death of Inayat Khan the property was divided equally between his four sons. At that time, it appears that the claim of the daughters of Inayat Khan was overlooked. Later, Salabat Khan died in 1908. The four anna share of Salabat Khan was recorded in the name of Shahbaz Khan alone. The claims of the daughters of Salabat Khan -- Mst. Jebanbi and Mst. Ninibi -- were again overlooked. Shahbaz Khan died on 13-12-1945. His elder brother, Yakub Khan, had predeceased Salabat Khan. After the death of Shahbaz Khan, a suit was filed by Mst. Betulbi, daughter of Yakub Khan, against the present defendants 2, 3 and 4 claiming a share in the property of Salabat Khan. That suit failed. We are not concerned with the facts of that suit as it was not between the parties, except to show the history of litigation in the case. Before his death, Shahbaz Khan executed a deed of gift on 30-4-1942, by which he gifted his entire property to defendants 2, 3 and 4. It is thus that defendants 2, 3 and 4 came into possession of the original four-anna share of Shabhaz Khan. The present suit was filed by the two plaintiffs, claiming one-third share in the four-anna share inherited by Shahbaz Khan from Salabat Khan and gifted to the answering defendants 2, 3 and 4. In doing so, the two plaintiffs claimed in the right of their mother. Mst. Jebanbi, who according to them, was entitled to one-anna share inherited from Salabat Khan.

( 4. ) THE Trial Court held that the first plaintiff, Ramjan Ali, was not the son of Jebanbi and was not entitled to succeed or to claim any property in suit. With regard to Ishak Ali, the present appellant, it was held that the claim was time-barred.

( 5. ) A few dates may once again be repeated. Salabat Khan died in 1908. Jebanbi died in 1918. Shahbaz Khan gifted the property in 1942 and he died in 1945. The suit was filed on 30-11-1950. There can be no doubt that the suit has been very much delayed. From the death of Salabat Khan, when the title, if any, of Jebanbi came into the picture, there has been a lapse of 42 years. It is contended that the possession of one co-owner enures for the benefit of other co-owners, and between them there can tee no adverse possession, unless there has been a specific ouster. It is submitted that a plea of ouster and adverse possession was not in terms made by the defendants and the finding given without a specific issue having been framed is not binding. The defendants in this case denied that the two plaintiffs were the sons of Jebanbi at all. They succeeded in so far as one of the plaintiffs (Ramjan Ali) was concerned, but failed with regard to the other. But the course of events in the family speaks volumes and that course of events has been narrated both by the plaintiffs and the defendants.

( 6. ) IN this family, it appears, the claims of ladies were overlooked. In 1908, when Salabat Khan died, mutation proceedings took place and Shahbaz Khan was recorded not only as the owner of the four-anna share, but also as the Lambardar, to which no claim was raised by Jebanbi or Ninibi against Shahbaz Khan. No doubt, in a Mohammedan family, the sisters live in purdah, and the action of the brothers in getting the property reco