JUDGMENT : RICHARDS, J.:— This was a suit for partition. The title of the plaintiffs is as follows:— One Gulzari Lal purchased the 1/6th share of a grove at an auction-sale in execution of a decree. On the 30th January, 1891, formal possession was given him. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Gulzari Lal. Defendants Nos. 4 to 6 represent the original judgment-debtors. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 represent the other co-sharers in the grove. But they were not judgment-debtors, nor were they parties to the suit which resulted in the decree in execution of which Gulzari Lal purchased. The first Court decreed the plaintiffs' suit. The lower appellate Court reversed that decree and held that the plaintiffs' claim for partition was barred by limitation. This is the only point which has been argued by either side. It is admitted that the suit having been instituted on the 10th January, 1003, the paintiffs' claim as against the re presentatives of the original judgment-debtors is not barred. But the lower appellate Court considered that in as much as the other defendants were not parties to the original suit the claim as against them was barred. In my opinion this decision is clearly wrong. The representatives of the original judgment-debtors have all along been in joint possession with the persons representing the other 5/6th of the property, and if the sale had never taken place under which Gulzari Lal purchased, it is quite clear that the representatives of the original judgment-debtors could have brought the present suit. The suit of the plaintiffs is not barred against the representatives of the judgment-debtors, and accordingly the plaintiffs are entitled to pursue all the rights and remedies which the representatives of the original judgment-debtors would have had, if the share which they represent had never been sold. The learned District Judge has treated the case as if the co-sharers had acquired a title adverse to the representatives of the original, judgment-debtors. But this is not the case. The representatives of the original; judgment-debtors have all along been in joint possession, and their possession was possession which enures for the benefit, of the present plaintiffs. The learned District Judge has treated the case as if the co-sharers had acquired a title adverse to the representatives of the original, judgment-debtors. But this is not the case. The representatives of the original; judgment-debtors have all along been in joint possession, and their possession was possession which enures for the benefit, of the present plaintiffs. I accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, and as the appeal was decided by that Court upon a preliminary point, I remand the case under section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure to that Court for disposal according to law. The appellants will have their costs of this appeal. Other costs will follow the event.