K. Kannan, J.—The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal:-

i) Whether the plaintiffs, whose plea of oral partition was rejected by the courts below, could succeed to the other brother’s share (Rattan Singh) on the ground of adverse possession without proof of ouster?

ii) Whether the entries in mutation brought about in the name of the defendant’s vendors themselves not sufficient to acknowledge his predecessor’s subsisting title over the property and constitute discontinuity of possession?

2. The suit by the plaintiffs for declaration that they had become the owners of half share in about 200 kanals 3 marlas of land situate in various khasra numbers was sought by the plaintiffs acknowledging that the half share belonged to Rattan Singh, who had been a spendthrift, a person of loose morals and known for dissipating his holdings. Rattan Singh’s brother was Kirpal Singh and the plaintiffs are the descendants of Kirpal Singh. The plaintiffs would contend that during the lifetime of Kirpal Singh and Rattan Singh, they had made oral partition between themselves in the year 1971 BK and a memorandum had been reduced in writing