JUDGMENT

Ghulam Hasan, J - This is a second civil appeal by two of the defendants in a suit for profits which has been decreed by the two Courts below. A short pedigree to illustrate the relationship between the contending parties may be given below:

TABLE

2. Kaniz Fatima had a brother Khurshed Husain, who left two sons, Yusuf Hasan and Shabbir Hasan. Mt. Masum-un-nisa had a brother Fitrat Husain and a sister, Mt. Talim-un-nisa, who was married to Mohammad Ayub. M. Hamid Husain, a resident of Safipur, district Unao, was a Munsif in the Ain. He died in 1915. Ahmad Hasan, Mahmud Hasan and Akhtar Fatima were minors at the time of his death. Akhtar Fatima has since died and her share devolved upon her two brothers, Ahmad Hasan and Mahmud Hasan. Mohammad Ayub referred to above was appointed a guardian of the minor children of Hamid Husain. It appears that Mahmud Hasan attained majority on 6th July 1929 while Ahmad Hasan attained majority on 12th December 1981. Mt. Kaniz Fatima died in 1918. It is stated that Khurshed Husain used to manage the property in suit on behalf of Hamid Husain during his lifetime and after his death he continued to manage the same property. It appears that the minor children of Hamid Husain left the residence of their father and went to live in village Chamramau in the district of Farru-khabad in the house of their mother. The property in dispute was mutated in equal moieties in the names of Mt. Kaniz Fatima (although she was entitled to a less share) on the one side and the minor children of Mt. Masum-un-nisa by Hamid Husain on the other side. On 23rd September 1916, Mt. Kaniz Fatima made a gift of her share in the property to her nephew, Yusuf Hasan and Shabbir Hasan, defendants 1 and 2 (vide Ex. 16). Defendants 3 and 4 who had also inherited the share of their sister Mt. Akhtar Fatima sold their half share to the plaintiff-respondent. They further transferred to the plaintiff the arrears of profits for the years 1341 to 1343 Fasli arising in respect of their share on 3rd October 1936. The plaintiff thereupon brought a suit on 5th July 1987, in which he claimed the profits. The claim was valued at Rs. 100 but it was stated in the relief paragraph that the plaintiff may be given a decree for such amount as may be found due to him on accounting. To this suit the plaintiff impleaded the donees of Mt. Kaniz Fatima and his two vendors Ahmad Hasan and Mahmud Hasan.

3. The suit was contested by defendants 1 and 2 on the ground that they had perfected their title by adverse possession in respect of the half share of defendants 3 and 4 and consequently there was nothing left for them to transfer to the plaintiff. This defence was rejected by the trial Court. As the amount of the profits was agreed to be Rs. 70, the trial Court decreed the claim for recovery of that amount against defendants 1 and 2. The latter's appeal against the aforesaid decision was dismissed by the lower appellate Court. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this second appeal and have reagitated the same question before me.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that the facts admitted or proved in the case fully establish a case of adverse possession on the part of the appellants which had the effect of extinguishing the title of the plaintiff's vendors. Reliance is placed in the first instance on the proceedings in the year 1924 in the Court of the District Judge. Exhibit A-5 is the application dated 10th September 1924, which Mohammad Ayub filed before the Court of the District Judge of Farrukhabad as guardian of the two minors, Mahmud Hasan and Ahmad Hasan, and their sister Akhtar Fatima. In this application he stated that the minors were unable to maintain themselves out of the little cash left by their father Hamid Husain, that their father had left some property in Safipur, district Unao, but the property was being managed by Khurshed Husain, the brother of his second wife, Mt. Kaniz Fatima, and for nine years since the death of