JUDGMENT

Mya Bu, J - Plaintiff-respondent, 1 Ma Lun Baw, is the widow of Maung San Hla Baw, deceased, and plaintiff-respondent 2, Ma Mai San, is their daughter. The appellant, who was defendant 1, in the Court of first-instance, and respondents 3, 4 and 5, who were the appellants-co-defendants are the sons of Maung Myat The Dun, deceased, who and Maung San Hla Baw were brothers, being the sons of one Maung Kya Mae by one of his wives.

2. The plaintiffs sued the defendants for partition of the land described in the map (Ex. B.), and delivery to them of a half share thereof, alleging that it originally belonged to Maung Kya Moe; and that, after Maung Kya Moe's death, the land fell into the hands of Maung Myat Tha Dun and Maung San Hla Baw as their share of the inheritance.

3. According to the. plaintiffs, Maung San Hla Baw died in 1276, B. B. but defendant-appellant 1 alleged that Maung 'San Hla Baw died about fourteen years before the suit.

4. The other defendants disclaimed their interest in the land, stating that it belonged to defendant-appellant 1. The suit was, therefore, contested entirely by the latter, who denied that it descended from Maung Kya Moe and asserted that it was first acquired and occupied by his father, Maung Myat Tha Dun who abandoned it after about seven years' occupation; that, therefore, he took over and continued to occupy the land and pay revenue on it for at least thirteen years; and that the suit was barred by limitation.

5. The trial Court found that the land was Ayadaw land, inherited jointly by the two brothers, Maung Myat Tha Dun and Maung San Hla Baw from U Kya Moe, but held that the suit was barred by limitation. On appeal, the learned District Judge discussed the evidence very fully and confirmed the learned trial Judge's conclusion that the land was inherited by Maung Myat Tha Dun and Maung San Hla Baw from their father, U Kya Moe. It is, therefore, quite unnecessary to recapitulate evidence on the point, beyond mentioning that, so far as the plaintiff's contention of joint ownership of the land between Maung Myat Tha Dun and Maung San Hla Baw is concerned, it receives very strong support from the defendant l's written statement, para. 3. I may at once say that there is no evidence to establish the allegation that either Maung Myat Tha Dun or Maung San Hla Baw ever abandoned the land, and that since it is clear that they were joint owners, and that there was no abandonment, "it is quite unimportant to find out whether the land was Bobabaing or Ayadaw.

6. On the question of limitation the burden of proving that the appellant's possession was exclusive and adverse to the other coheirs is on him. The land is in his sole possession and, apparently, it has been in his sole possession for about thirteen years. He worked the land and paid revenue on it for that period. The mere payment of revenue, or the entry of the appellant's name alone in the revenue registers, in my opinion, is not sufficient to show that he claimed exclusive ownership in repudiation of the title of the co-owners. According to the ruling in Hari Pru v. Mi Aung Kraw Zan [1919] 10 L.B.R. 45, a co-owner who claims title by adverse possession must show that he expressly repudiated the title of his co-owners by an overt claim to exclusive ownership more than twelve years previously.

7. The plaintiffs were living in the house of Maung Myat Tha Dun along with Maung Myat Tha Dun's children and apparently, until plaintiff l's remarriage and plaintiff 2's marriage they lived on with the defendant-appellant. Therefore, mere occupation by the defendantt-appellant of the land in dispute affords no evidence of exclusion of the interest of the others in the property.

8. As the defendant-appellant has failed to prove that his possession has been adverse for more than twelve years before the suit, I hold that the suit is not barred by limitation under Art."144 Lim. Act.

9. For these reasons the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court are uphel