JUDGMENT : Knox, J. This is an appeal from a decision of the learned District Judge of Jhansi, who held that the plaintiff's suit ‘was barred by limitation. The plaintiffs have come here in second appeal and the case has been argued at considerable length. After hearing all that has been said on behalf of the appellants we have come to the conclusion that the learned District Judge was right. The suit is for possession of an eight-anna share in the village Rajepur. This share originally belonged to Mulchand. He disappeared in the year 1857, leaving the revenue unpaid. The Government made the share over to one Mangu Lal, predecessor in title of the present respondents, for a term of years which expired with the year 1871. This term was within fifteen years of the time of the default. The Government in case of default has the power of making over the share, in respect of which an arrear of revenue is due, to another co-sharer in the same mahal for a period not exceeding fifteen years. If Mulchand had appear ed in 1871, the probability is that the Government would have settled with him the eight-anna share, which originally belonged to Mm; but he did not appear and until the present suit was instituted in 1903, no claim was made. The plaintiffs have purchased his rights from his grandsons. Meanwhile, by an auction-sale, which took place on the 20th February, 1891, the property passed into the hands of the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. Whatever may have been the case before 1871, from that date onwards there has been discontinuance of possession on the part of the original owner of the property and his representatives. There is no case here of a direct trust as between the owner of the property and the predecessor-in-title of the respondents. In our opinion the claim is barred by the provisions of article 142 of the second schedule of the Indian Limitation Act. The case is very much on all fours with a case, which will be found reported in the Punjab Record of 1885, namely, the case of Nihal Singh v. Dube Singh, Civil judgment No. 38, p. 71. We dismiss the appeal with costs. The costs in this Court will include fees on the higher scale.