JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The dispute in this case relates to two fields, Nos. 485 and 457/2, which formed part of the village shamilat and which, on partition, had been allotted by the revenue officer to the defendant. The plaintiffs alleged that khasra No. 457/2 was in the exclusive possession of Fajja and khasra No, 435 of Allah Ditta, who were proprietors in the village, that Eajja and Allah Ditta sold these specific numbers to the plaintiffs more than 12 years ago, that they had acquired title by adverse possession and that these fields were not liable to partition. They, therefore, sued for a declaration of their title and also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession.

2. The defendant, Ghulam Nabi, denied the plaintiffs' claim. The suit was dismissed by the trial Judge. On appeal the learned Senior Subordinate Judge has held that the alleged sale of khasra No. 435 by Allah Ditta to the plaintiffs has not been proved, nor have the plaintiffs been in possession for more than 12 years. He has accordingly maintained the lower Court's decree, dismissing the suit relating to this field. As regards khasra No, 457/2, however, he found that Fajja was in exclusive possession in April 1927, when he sold it to the plaintiffs, who have since been in exclusive possession. From these facts he concluded that the plaintiffs had acquired title by adverse possession of this field and that it was not liable to partition.

3. He, accordingly, accepted the appeal to this extent and granted the plaintiffs a decree for the declaration and injunction asked for relating to this field. The defendant has appealed against the decree of the lower Court relating to khasra No. 457/2, while the plaintiffs have filed cross-objections relating to khasra No. 435. The cross-objections are without substance and are not seriously pressed by Mr. Inder Dev. There is no evidence on the record to prove that Allah Ditta ever sold this field to the plaintiffs or that they had been in actual possession for more than 12 years before the suit. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly dismissed the suit relating to khasra No. 435. The cross-objections accordingly fail and are dismissed.

4. As regards khasra No. 457/2 the facts are no longer in dispute. It is admitted by the plaintiffs-respondents that this khasra was a part of the village shamilat and Fajja, one of the proprietors in the village, was in exclusive possession of this field before 1927 but he had never denied that it was a part of the shamilat jointly owned by the proprietary body. In April 1927, he orally sold this field to the plaintiffs for Rs. 200 and reported the sale to the patwari. The mutation was sanctioned by the revenue officer on 27th August 1927. It was not stated by Fajja in the mutation proceedings that he was the sole owner and in the new entries the land was described as shamilatdeh in the occupation of the plaintiffs.

5. These entries were repeated in the subsequent jamabandis. There is nothing to show that after the purchase the plaintiffs ever denied the joint character of the land until the partition proceedings which commenced a short time before the institution of the suit. On these facts it is difficult to see how the plaintiffs could have acquired title by prescription. In law uninterrupted sole possession of one cosharer of a part of the joint property cannot, by itself and without more, amount to ouster of the others: Corea v. Appuhamy (1912) 1912 AC 230 and Hardit Singh v. Gurmukh Singh A.I.R. 1918 PC 1. In such circumstances the possession of one co-owner is presumed to be the possession of all and it is only when a cosharer in assertion of a hostile title does a hostile overt act that the statute begins to run against the other cosharer.

6. Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents admitted that this is so, but he contends that this rule does not hold good as between the transferee from a cosharer and the other cosharers. This