1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decision of the Officiating Subordinate Judge of the 24. Pargannas reversing a decision of the Munsif of Basirhat. The plaintiff sued for declaration of her title to, and to establish her right to the rent of, certain land. Her case was that the land belonged originally to one Motilal and that she acquired the land by purchase from Moti Lal's successors-in-interest. The defence was that the land belonged not to Moti lal but to Baiknntha and that the defendants ware the heirs of Baikantba. It appeared in evidence, that the lands in snit were acquired at a time when Moti lal and Baikuntha were joint and, accordingly the plaintiff reduced her claim to 8-annas share in the land claiming Moti lal's spare. The Munsif decreed the suit in the plaintiff's favour so far as regards the 8 annas share. Bat the loner Appellate Court reversed the Munsif's finding holding that Moti lal and his successors-in interest were barred by the advene possession of Biikantha and his heirs, It is said that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in so holding and that in as much as Moti lal and Baikuntha only separated in mess and not in estate the possession of Baikuuntha and his heirs sould not be held as adverse to their co-sharers, that is to Motilal's heirs. We were referred to the case of Balaram Guria v. Syama Charan Mondal 60 Ind. Cas. 298 : 24 C. W. N. 1057 : 3 C. L. J. 344, We think that the appellant's contention is correct, and that the Munsif correctly stated the law on the point and that the Subordinate Judge has wrongly held, under the circumstance, that the possession of Baikuntha and his heirs was adverse to Motilal and his heirs.
2. The result in, that wa reverse the decision of the Subordinate Judge and restore the decision of the Mansif. The plaintiff will be entitled to the costs of this appeal and to her costs in the lower Appellate Court.