JUDGMENT : STANLEY, J. We cannot properly decide this appeal without having a determination of an issue, which has not been determined by the lower appellate Court. The suit is one for declara-tion of right to possession of a grove. One Gopal Sewak was owner of this grove. He died in 1858 and the defendants claim title to it as his heirs. It is alleged by the plaintiff-appellant that Har Charan Lal was in wrongful possession of the grove since 1880. ‘until the year 1896, when he executed a deed (described as a deed of relinquishment) in favour of one Lalji Mal, The plaintiff, Babu Ram, subsequently purchased the, rights of Lalji Mal at an auction sale, and his case is that his predecessors in title, that is, Harcharan Lal and Lalji Mal had been in adverse possession of the grove for a period of upwards of 12 years and so had acquired title to it. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's claim But upon appeal the learned District Judge held that there was no privity between Harcharan Lal and Lalji Mal; that both of them were trespassers and had no common interest, one trespasser being quite distinct from and entirely unconnected with the other, and therefore the periods of trespass cannot be added together in calculating the time during which Lalji Mal may be said to have been in adverse possession. We do not agree with the learned. Judge in this view, Harcharan Lal was admittedly in possession of the property as a trespasser for some time before he transferred his interest in 1896 to Lalji Mal, and Lalji Mal, derived his title from him. If the combined periods of time, during which Haroharan Lal and Lalji Mal were in possession, amounted without any break to a period of. 12 years, Lalji Mal upon the authorities could set up a claim to the property by adverse possession and the plaintiff, who purchased the rights of Lalji Mal, would be in the same position. The learned District Judge was wrong in saying that the two trespassers, Har Charan Lal and Lalji Mal had no common interest. They had a common interest seeing that Lalji Mal acquired the grove by transfer from Harcharan Lal. The learned District Judge was wrong in saying that the two trespassers, Har Charan Lal and Lalji Mal had no common interest. They had a common interest seeing that Lalji Mal acquired the grove by transfer from Harcharan Lal. It has been held in several casses, and amongst others in the case of Gobind Prasad v. Mohan Lal,[1902] I.L.R., 24 All, 157, that a person in possession of land without title has an interest in the property which is heritable and good against all the world except the true owner an interest which unless, and until the true owner interferes, is capable of being disposed of by deed or sale or by execution sale, just in the same way as it could be dealt with if the title were unimpeachable. Harcharan Lal therefore being in possession of this grove had an interest, which he could transfer to Lalji Mal and which he did transfer by the deed which executed in 1896. Lalji Mal derived his, title from Harcharan Lal and if the periods during which these two persons were in adverse possession amounted altogether to 12 years Lalji Mal would, by right of such possession have acquired an absolute title under the statute of limitation. The learned District Judge, however, has not found the period over which the enjoyment of the property by Harcharan Lal extended and we, therefore, before we determine this appeal, must refer the following issue to him for determination under the provisions of section 566 of the Code of Civil Procedure:— Over what period of time did the possession and enjoyment of the grove in dispute by Harcharan, Lal and Lalji Mal together extend? 2. The Court may take suck relevant evidence as may be adduced by either party. On return of the finding the parties will have the usual ten days for filing objections.