1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was one brought by the next reversioners for recovery of possession of the property of which one Nek Ram was the last male owner. The plaintiff-appellant in this Court is the great grandson of one Pemraj, being the grandson of Birbal, son of Pemraj Pemraj had another son named Lokman who left two sons, Manbhawan and Zalim. It has been found by the Court below that Manbhawan and Zalim were members of a joint Hindu family. On the death of Manbhawan, the name of his widow Musammat Inda was recorded in the revenue papers in succession to Manbhawan. Zalim died leaving a son named Nekram who died shortly afterwards in 1886 leaving a widow Musammat Radha who died in 1893. Before that Musammat Inda had died in 1883, and Musammat Lado, widow of Zalim, had obtained mutation of names in succession to Musammat Inda. The plaintiffs' suit in respect of Zalim's share in the estate has been decreed, but in respect to the share which, belonged to Manbhawan and in respect of which Musammat Lado had obtained mutation of names in succession to Musammat Inda, the plaintiffs' suit has been dismissed. The Court below has held that Musammat Inda, widow of Manbhawan, was allowed to retain possession of her husband's share and on Musammat Inda's death the share had passed on to Musammat Lado direct. On these facts the Court below has held that Musammat Lado had taken possession of Manbhawan's share without right and that as she held possession for a period of over 12 years, she had perfected a title by-adverse possession at the time of her death which occurred 4 years before the institution of the suit. One of the plaintiffs appeals. The two main -grounds which have been urged before me are that the family being joint, it is immaterial in whose name any portion of the joint family property was recorded in the revenue papers that so long as the family remained joint every portion of the family property remained joint family property no matter whose name was recorded. Further that whatever may have been Musammat Lado's title or want of title, when she succeeded Musammat Inda in the year 1888, she, by the death of Musammat Radha in 1893, became entitled to hold the share originally recorded in Musammat Inda's name for her life-time and that, therefore, her possession up to the time of her death 4 years before suit was not a possession which could be styled adverse to the reversioners. Both these contentions are, in my opinion, sound. I am unable to reconcile the finding of the Court below that Musammat Lado had separate possession of the share in suit with the finding that Manbhawan and Zalim formed members of a joint Hindu family. Presumably the widows still continued to live jointly and to enjoy the family property together. There also appears to be no reason for assuming that Musammat Lado's possession was adverse in view of the fact that on Musammat Radha's death in 1893, Musammat Lado had a good title to possession which could not be questioned by the reversioners. In my opinion the Courts below were wrong in not decreeing the plaintiffs' suit in respect of Manbhawan's share in the joint family estate. I allow this appeal, set aside the orders of the Courts below and decree the plaintiff's suit in full for possession of the property. The plaintiff-appellant will have his whole costs in this Court and in the Courts below.