JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. This is an appeal under section 10 of the Letters Patent against a judgment of a learned Judge of this High Court. The suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover against the defendant the share of profits of Certain property of which the plaintiff alleged that he was a co-sharer, The Court of first instance decreed the claim, and this decree was affirmed on appeal by the lower appellate Court and also by the learned judge of this Court on second appeal. We are of opinion that under the circumstances of this case the decision of our learned brother was perfectly correct, It is found as a fact that the share of the property in respect of which the claim was brought formerly belonged to one Bhagwan Das who was the predecessor in title of the plaintiff. He died in the year 1888. Up to the lime of his death, Bhagwan Das enjoyed the profits of his share. It is further found that after the death of Bhagwan Das the property either did not yield any profits or that if it did yield any profit, the profit was so insignificant that the successors in title of Bhagwan Das did not trouble themselves in respect of it. It is further found that the appellant, who is the lambardar of the property, never denied the plaintiff's title or set up an adverse title in himself until the year 1900. Having regard to these facts the learned Judge of this Court held, concurring with the views of the lower Courts, that the plaintiff was entitled to succeed. 2. The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that inasmuch as it was not established in evidence that at any time during twelve years previous to the suit, the plaintiff had obtained any profits, his claim was barred by limitation. Reliance is placed in respect of this contention upon several authorities to which we shall shortly refer. One of these is the case of Muhammad Husain v. Badri Prasad, [1895] A.W.N., 88.. In that case it was held by our brother AIKMAN that the mere circumstance that a co-sharer's name is recorded in the revenue papers will not prevent a suit by him for his share of profits being barred by limitation, if in fact he has received no profits for more than twelve years prior to the suit. In that case it was held by our brother AIKMAN that the mere circumstance that a co-sharer's name is recorded in the revenue papers will not prevent a suit by him for his share of profits being barred by limitation, if in fact he has received no profits for more than twelve years prior to the suit. 3. On a perusal of the facts of that case it will appear that so long back as the 25th of August, 1879, the lambardar set up an adverse claim to the property, alleging that the plaintiff had not received any profits of the property, for a period of twelve years, In this defence the lambardar set up an adverse title to the property. The learned Judge on appeal says with regard to the plea that in 1879 the defendant denied the plaintiff's title, “I would observe that it is not shown that it was in 1879 that, the defendant first denied the plaintiff's title. From the defence in the former suit and from the fact that it is not shown that the plaintiff ever received any profits from this share, I infer that the defendant has all along denied the plaintiff's title.” That case is not an authority in support of the proposition which is advanced on behalf of the appellant in this case. It was found in it as a fact that the defendant had all along denied the plaintiff's title. In the case before us it has been found as a fact that the defendant never denied the plaintiff's title or set up an adverse title himself until the year 1900. 4. Another case which has been relied upon on behalf of the appellant is the unreported case of Mahadeo Pershad v. Raja Sawal Singh,L.P.A. No. 8 of 1902. In that appeal BLAIR and AIKMAN, JJ., concurring with Mr. justice KNOX, held that “the current of authority is consistently in favour of the view taken by KNOX, J.” Mr. Justice KNOX in his judgment in second appeal states that “there is a chain of rulings of this Court, extending from 1868 down to the year 1895, in which it has been held consistently that a lambardar may obtain adverse possession of the share of a co-sharer by withholding and appropriating to his own use the profits thereof. Justice KNOX in his judgment in second appeal states that “there is a chain of rulings of this Court, extending from 1868 down to the year 1895, in which it has been held consistently that a lambardar may obtain adverse possession of the share of a co-sharer by withholding and appropriating to his own use the profits thereof. The mere entry of co-sharer's name does not give him a right to the profits in the absence of any reliable proof that be has enjoyed those profits at any time within twelve years prior to the institution of the suit.” The dictum is pressed upon us as a decision that in any case where a co-sharer fails to establish that he has within a period of twelve years received the profits of his share, his claim is barred by limitation. The language is undoubtedly-susceptible of this meaning, but we are disposed to think that by the use of the words withholding and appropriating to his own use the profits,” the learned Judge intended to convey ‘a refusal on the part of the lambardar after demand to pay any share of the profits to a co-sharer.’ If this be the meaning of the words, then we see no difficulty in accepting this as a true exposition of the law; otherwise we are unable to agree in the view expressed in the judgment. We are disposed to accept the ruling of a Bench of this Court Raj Bahadur v. Kuat Bharat Singh,S.A. 1132 of 1902., in which this question was discussed, There it was held that the mere non-payment of the share of a co-sharer by the lambardar for a period of twelve years did not bar the right of the co-sharer subsequently to maintain a suit for the arrears due to him, for the preceding three years, it not having been established that the lambardar or his predecessors in title ever claimed or set up an adverse title to the share in dispute to the exclusion of the plaintiff or ever repudiated the right of the plaintiff or his predecessors in title to enjoy the profits of that share. We think that possibly the nature of the possession of a lambardar has been overlooked in the lower Courts. The possession of the lambardar is not adverse possession. We think that possibly the nature of the possession of a lambardar has been overlooked in the lower Courts. The possession of the lambardar is not adverse possession. It is only when a lambardar has set up an adverse Claim or has repudiated the title of a co-sharer that his possession can be regarded as adverse. For these reasons we think the view of out learned brother in the appeal which was preferred to him is perfectly correct. We therefore dismiss the appeal with costs.