The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of adverse possession on the title of the property and the need to adjust the equities between conflicting rights in property disputes.

1. This judgment will govern First Appeal 99-B/35 as well as First Appeal 8/36. They both arise out of the same judgment. We will deal with F.A. 99-B/35 first. The facts were placed before us in a somewhat confused state but once they are disentangled the questions which remain are not difficult. The property in dispute consists of a number of different plots which have been shown in a map prepared by the commissioner appointed for that purpose in the lower Court. It originally belonged to one Hatamsha and from him descended to the defendants, (except the fifth and sixth), as shown in the following tree. Defendant 1 got an undivided 8 annas and defendants 2, 3 and 6 an undivided 2 annas 8 pies each. There has been no partition by metes and bounds but the parties being Mahomedans succeeded to separate and distinct shares.

2. The dispute in First Appeal 99-B/35 relates to plots Nos. 2 and 3. We take the numbers from the commissioner's map. We will recite the facts relating to plot No. 3 first. On 2nd July 1913 defendant 1 leased his un-undivided interest in plot No. 3 to defendant 15 (who is the appellant in this appeal) by a document Ex. 15., D-1. Exhibit P-10 is a copy of the same document. It will be convenient however to refer throughout to Ex. 15., D-1. But though an undivided half interest was leased defendant 15 was placed in possession of the whole plot and it appears that he had been allowed to construct a substantial structure on this plot at some time anterior to the lease. Who had allowed him to do this has not been disclosed, but the lease deed refers to this fact and acknowledges that the superstructure on the plot belongs to defendant 15, and further states that even after the termination of the lease the lessee is not to be deprived of possession, unless the superstructure is paid for by the lessor. The recitals so far as they are relevant are as follows:

. . . Hussainsha Fakir and, myself own a land measuring 30 X 30 feet' (this is plot No. 3) 'I am entitled to half of the aforesaid land as owner. I have given to you on rent my own half share in the aforesaid land for a period of six years . . . The land is bounded as under . . . Half the land of the land within the aforesaid boundary limits has as stated above, been given to you on rent for six years.

. . . P. S. The superstructure constructed on the aforesaid land does not belong to us. It is constructed by you. It is owned by you. If after the expiry of the aforesaid period of six years I want to take back my land, I will pay you the price that the Panchas may fix of your superstructure on the land and then will take possession of the land. I will recover from you Rs. 16 by way of the rent of the land per year until I pay you the amount fixed by the Panchas on account of the superstructure.

3. It is to be observed that though the deed speaks of ''half the land within the aforesaid boundaries'' it means an undivided half and not a demarcated half. As a matter of fact, we understand that the superstructure covers the whole of this plot. It is also to be observed that though the deed speaks of the lessor having a half share in this plot that is not strictly accurate. What he had was an undivided half share in the whole of the property which consists of a number of plots and only an expectation of having this plot, or a half of it, assigned to his share at a partition. It will be necessary to take this into consideration when the property is divided at the partition. Two years after this lease, namely on 3rd November 1915, defendant 1 mortgaged his undivided 8 annas interest in the whole estate to the plaintiff. Then after this, on 30th May 1917, he sold his undivided half interest in plot No. 3 to defendant 15 by an unregistered deed of sale, Ex. 15D-2(A). Several years later defendant 3 mortgaged his undivided 2 annas 8 pies share in the whole estate to the plaintiff by two mortgage deeds, Ex. p. 31 dated 2nd October 1923 and Ex. P. 32 dated 11th March 1926