1. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession. Both the Courts below have found that one Musammat Radhey was in possession of certain property at the time of her death. She left three daughters and no 'sons, namely Musammat Bhagwanti, the plaintiff, Musammat Lakhpati and Musammat Govindi. Having regard to the findings and the circumstances of the case we must treat the property a- having belonged to Musammat Radhey. The present suit is to recover one-third of the property on the allegation that on Musammat Lakhpati's death the plaintiff was entitled to it. The answering defendant Baldeo Prasad is a transferee under a deed of transfer, dated the 31st of May 1904, from the sons of Musammat Lakhpati. The Court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The lower Appellate Court reversed that decree. The decision of the lower Appellate Court was based on the finding that Musammat Lakhpati had only a life-interest which upon her death vested in Musammat Bhagwanti as the sole survivor of the three sisters. (It is admitted that Musammat Govindi died long ago.) It may be assumed for the purposes of the present appeal that the three daughters of Musammat Radhey only took a limited interest and that the interest which they took was a joint interest, which in the absence of agreement between themselves would devolve on the survivors on the death of any one of them and that their sons would not take as their heirs but as the heirs of Musammat Radhey. What the three daughters did is admitted. Instead of remaining in joint possession they each took one-third of the property. Each of them had sons and each of them got their sons' names recorded in respect of the one-third which they took. The only possible inference that can be drawn from these circumstances is that the ladies agreed to divide up the property amongst them in such a way as to bind all three. It may be that the heirs of Musammat Radhey (unless they happen to be the sons of the ladies who have been partners to the family arrangement) will not be bound by any arrangement which the daughters made between themselves, but there can be not the least doubt that the three daughters were all bound by what they did. That being so, Musammat Bhagwanti has no right to maintain the present suit. Dr. Sulaiman has strongly urged that there is no finding by the Court below that there was any such arrangement and that we should, at least, remit an issue on the point. We think that there is no necessity to send an issue in view of the admitted facts. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore the decree of the Court of first instance with costs in all Courts, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.