JUDGMENT

Wazir Hasan, A J C - This is the plaintiffs' appeal. The suit out of which it arises was for possession of 6 annas 10 & 2/7 pies share in village Santher, pargana Nanpara in the district of Bahraich.

2. The aforementioned village belonged in its entirety to one Musahib Ali in under-proprietary tenure. The superior proprietor of the village is the taluqdar of Tapraha. Musahib Ali died on 16th September, 1896. His heirs under the Hanafi-Muhammadan Law were his widow, Mt. Mariyam, the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5, and Nawab Ali, defendant No. 2, sons of Akbar Ali, a brother of Musahib Ali, and also one Saadat Ali, plaintiff's brother since deceased.

3. On the death of Musahib Ali the taluqdar of Tapraha brought a suit for possession of the village as against Mt. Mariyam. That suit failed in the Court of first instance, and during the pendency of the appeal from the decree of that Court Mt. Mariyam died on the 18th September, 1900. On the application of the taluqdar the nephews of Musahib Ali, whose names have been stated before, were made the legal representatives of the deceased Mariyam. The defendant No. 1 to the present suit, Mt. Salima, is a niece of Mt. Mariyam. She also applied to be made a party to the appeal on the allegation that the deceased lady, Mt. Mariyam, had made a gift of the property in suit to her. This application was made on the 26th September, 1900. With the consent of the then appellant, Mt. Salima was also impleaded a party respondent to the appeal. The appeal was eventually dismissed.

4. The plaintiffs' case is that under a family settlement, as well as under a family custom, Mt. Mariyam was in possession of the village for her lifetime, and on her death the reversionary interest under the same settlement and the same custom devolved upon the heirs of her deceased husband Musahib Ali. On the death of Mariyam, however, Mt. Salima took unlawful possession of half of the village and the other half was in the possession of the defendant No. 2, who is the brother of the plaintiffs.

5. In the year 1911, the plaintiffs and the taluqdar applied to the Court of Revenue for the entry of their names in the revenue registers. Mt. Salima objected to this application. The decision of the Court was that the then existing entry in respect of half of the village, which was made immediately after Mt. Mariyam's death in favour of Mt. Salima, shall stand unaltered, while the entry of the name of the defendant No. 2 in respect of the other half of the village shall be altered by adding the names of the plaintiffs to the name of the defendant. The latter alteration was accordingly made in the khewat.

6. The present suit is mainly directed to obtain possession of the eight annas share which is held by Mt. Salima, and it is said that Nawab Ali, defendant No. 2, having refused to join in the array of the plaintiffs was made a defendant in the suit.

7. For the purposes of this appeal the only defence which need be stated was that the share in the possession of Mt. Salima has been held adversely by her for a period of more than twelve years and that consequently the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation under Article 144 of the First Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act.

8. The trial Court has held that the case set up by the plaintiffs as to the family custom and the family settlement was not established and it has further held that the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants was established. In the grounds embodied in the memorandum of appeal to this Court objection is made against the decision of the Court of first instance on the last-mentioned plea only.

9. I am of opinion that the decision of the lower Court is correct. The plaintiffs argue that they and Mt. Salima are co-sharers, and that, therefore, her exclusive possession cannot be construed to be adverse to the plaintiffs' title without a complete disclaimer and ouster. There is no such disclaimer or ouster established in the case.

10. In the first pla