1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by the plaintiff to recover possession of an 8-anna share of a certain holding on establishment of his title there to. The holding in suit, it appears, originally belonged to one Sital Sital died some 40 years before suit and thereupon the holding descended to his sons, one Haran and one Narain. Narain and Haran lived jointly until the death of Narain some 25 to 36 years before suit, Narain died leaving a widow named Ramani, who has a daughter Umasundari, who again has two sons. They are defendants Nos. 17 to 20 in this suit. Haran died 20 years before suit leaving a widow Soudbyamoni, who is defendant No. 1. The findings are that after the death of Narain the two branches of the family and after the death of Haran the two widows lived jointly until at a time not less than 15 years before suit, the widow of Narain, i.e, defendant No. 17, became a Vaishnavi, left the home of Sital, Haran and Narain and thereafter lived either on alms or in the house, of her son in law--the husband of the daughter Umasundari, the defendant No 18 The plaintiff in the suit is a purchaser from defendants Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20, but for the purposes of the present suit the purchase is of importance only as from the widow--the defendant No. 17, the other defendants having no vested interest in the property. The question before the Subordinate Judge was--as the question before us in this appeal is--whether the title of the widow, and, therefore, of the plaintiff, was barred by open assertion of hostile title to the knowledge of the widow and the plaintiff for more than twelve years before suit. The findings of fact at which the Subordinate Judge has arrived is that the widow Ramani became a Vaishnavi not less than 15 yeas before suit, and having become a Vaishnavi, left her husband's house and lived thereafter by begging or in the house of her son-in law. The holding remained first in the name of her husband's brother Haran and after his death in the name of Haran's widow, who alone paid rents and taxes for the 15 years preceding suit. The widow Ramani paid no visit to her former home or to the widow of Haran and did not participate in the profits of the property. For these 15 years defendant No. 1 was in sole or exclusive possession, openly and to the knowledge of the widow Ramani. From these facts the learned Subordinate Judge has drawn the conclusion that defendant No. 1's possession was in assertion of a clear intention to terminate the co-tenancy and in open assertion of a hostile title to the knowledge of the defendant No. 17. We are not, we think, entitled to say that on the facts which he has found the learned Subordinate Judge was not competent to draw this inference in law, and in that connection we may refer to the cases reported as Ayennessa Bibi v. Sheikh Isuf 14 Ind. Cas. 722 : 16 C.W.N. 849, Lokenath Singh v. Dhwakeshwar Prosad Narayan Singh 27 Ind. Cas. 465 : 20 C.W.N. 51 : 21 C.L.J. 253. and Jatindra Nath Roy v. Sabidannessa Khatun 35 Ind. Cas. 35, 20 C.W.N. 1258 : 24 C.L.J. 165. In this view, this appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.