1. This appeal, although it has been argued at some little length, has got absolutely nothing in it. The points have obviously been rightly decided by the lower Appellate Court. Two points have been pressed most before us. The first is that the defendant No. 1 purchased the property in execution of the mortgage decree it a suit to which the appellants before us were not parties and that, therefore, the plaintiffs are not bound by that decree and by some principle of law which is not altogether clear, it is said that the defendant No, 1 is estopped from alleging that he has got a title by adverse possession, having been settled on the property by the admitted landlord and having ousted the original tenants for more than two years, That is a proposition I do not agree with.
2. The second point that is put forward and argued is that the special rule of limitation in Article 3, Schedule III of the Bengal Tenancy Act, only applies in cases in which the landlord himself is a defendant in the suit. That is not well-founded. The decisions of this Court are the other way, commencing from the decision reported as Bheka Singh v. Nakchhed Singh 24 C. 40 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 692.
3. The other point raised is as regards the shares. That, of course, is clearly concluded by the finding of fact made by the lower Appellate Court.
4. The appeal, therefore, fails and must be dismissed with costs.
5. I agree.