1. No one appears to oppose the appeal. We find ourselves unable to support the decree of the District Judge.
2. The decree in Appeal Suit No. 419 of 1880 (Exhibit I) did not decide that the then defendants were in adverse possession of the lands as against the then landlord. It merely decided that the present plaintiffs (then second and third plaintiffs) had not then obtained registration of their title under the registered landlord, and that they could not maintain a suit to enforce acceptance of patta until such registration had been made. The registration was made in 1884 and by that registration the plaintiffs for the first time obtained a complete title on which to enforce acceptance of pattas. There is no evidence that the possession by the tenants was at any time hostile to the plaintiffs or their vendor. The mere omission to collect rent does not make the tenancy hostile.
3. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the Sub-Collector. The plaintiff's must have their costs throughout.