1. It is quite clear from the findings of the learned District Judge that on the death of Sheobati Koer, the estate of her husband came into the possession of five persons three of whom were the actual reversioners, being the nearest sapindas of her husband, and the other two one degree lower in descent. The two latter persons were not the actual reversioners but those that were, treated them on an equal footing and they possessed the property in equal shares for several years, short, however, of the statutory period necessary to give them title by adverse possession. The appellants are the purchasers at an execution sale of the interest of one of those two persons, named Pitambar, and the respondents who were the plaintiffs are the purchasers from two of the actual reversioners. The question is whether the appellants have acquired any title by their purchase to the property in suit. As Pitambar was not one of the actual reversioners he did not acquire any title by succession. He was, however, made a co-sharer by the actual reversioners and placed in possession. The appellants were the lessees of the disputed property and for several years, they paid rent to Pitambar as the owner of one-fifth share and the actual reversioners treated him in various transactions as the owner of one-fifth share. It is contended on the one hand, that this conduct of the actual reversioners could not under the law create any title in favour of Pitambar inasmuch as there was no registered deed of transfer and on the other, that it was a family arrangement and one of the legitimate means of the acquisition of property under the Hindu Law. Manu Chapter X, Section 115 enumerates seven approved means of the acquisition of property. The first is daya, succession or inheritance, and the second is labha or receipt from friend, etc. Gautama says: 'an owner is by inheritance, purchase, partition seizure or finding' Chapter X, 39. Transfer by way of gift, therefore, is not the only means of creating title apart from inheritance or succession. If the persons actually entitled to a property agree to treat a near relation as a co-sharer out of affection and abandon their claim to an exclusive right, they may do so without a registered deed. If the act is unequivocal, it will create title in favour of the person who is taken in as a co-sharer. Although it would be safer to have registered deeds, it cannot be said that such arrangements amongst near relations create no title. This being so, Pitambar had a valid title which passed to the appellants.
2. In this view of the case, it is not necessary to consider the question of estoppel as a source of title.
3. As the case, however, is decided on a view of the law discussed in neither of the Courts below, each party will bear its own costs in all Courts. The appeal is accordingly allowed.