JUDGMENT Chatterjea, A.C.J. 1. This is an appeal under sec. 15 of the Letters latent arising from a difference of opinion between Mr, Justice Greaves and Mr. Justice Cuming. The facts are as follows :- The Plaintiff alleged that the lands described in Schs. Ka and Kha of the plaint belonged to two brothers Badulla and Salimuddi, that by a division between the two brothers the western portion was allotted to the former and the eastern portion to the latter; that the Plaintiff having been in possession of the western portion had been dispossessed by the Defendant who obtained a lease of both the portions from Salimuddi's heirs, in 1325. 2. The suit was for recovery of possession on establishment of title. 3. The defence was that both portions of the land were obtained by Salimuddi by exchange, Badulla getting lands elsewhere. and that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by limitation. 4. The Court of first instance held that the exchange set up by the Defendants was proved and that the Plaintiff failed to prove possession and dispossession within twelve years. 5. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that the exchange was not proved and that the division alleged by the Plaintiff was merely a division for the sake of convenience of possession, and, in the result, he reversed the decree of the Court of first instance. 6. On appeal to this Court there was, as stated above, a difference of opinion between the learned Judges. Mr. Justice Greaves took the finding of the learned Subordinate Judge to mean that there was no partition by metes and bounds between the two brothers, but that they remained joint owners of the whole 7 bighas and that the possession of the different portions was for the sake of mutual convenience. In that view of the finding of the lower Appellate Court, he dismissed the appeal. 7. Mr. Justice Cuming, on the other hand, was of opinion that the suit being one for ejectment, on the allegation that the Plaintiff had been dispossessed, the Plaintiff must prove possession within twelve years and that he had a subsisting title; and accordingly, he remanded the case. 8. 7. Mr. Justice Cuming, on the other hand, was of opinion that the suit being one for ejectment, on the allegation that the Plaintiff had been dispossessed, the Plaintiff must prove possession within twelve years and that he had a subsisting title; and accordingly, he remanded the case. 8. There is no doubt that in a suit for ejectment where the Plaintiff comes to Court on the allegation of possession and dispossession, he must show that he was in possession within twelve years; and, it is also true that in the plaint in the present case the Plaintiff set up a division of the lands in two portions, the western portion having fallen to the share of his predecessor in title, and if the case had stood there, it might have been necessary to remand the case for a finding whether the Plaintiff was in possession within twelve years or not. 9. It appears, however, that in the second prayer of the plaint the Plaintiff stated that "if in the opinion of the Court a partition by metes and bounds was not established, then the Plaintiff might be given possession of the entire land jointly with the Defendants." It appears that this alternative case was not placed before the learned Judges of the Division Bench, but we think that the case can be decided upon that alternative case having regard to the findings arrived at by the lower Appellate Court. 10. The position is this : the Plaintiff alleges a division; but at the same time he says that if the Court holds that there was no actual division by metes and bounds the Plaintiff might be given joint possession: The learned Subordinate Judge no doubt uses the word " division " (for the purpose of convenience)-we think what he meant was that there was no formal partition but that each of the parties took possession for the sake of convenience, that is, an informal partition-not an actual partition- operating as severance of the joint property. 11. After having discussed the evidence on behalf of the Defendants the learned Subordinate Judge says : " On the other hand, the case of the Plaintiff that the brothers for convenience of possession divided the plot equally " shows that the property was joint. 11. After having discussed the evidence on behalf of the Defendants the learned Subordinate Judge says : " On the other hand, the case of the Plaintiff that the brothers for convenience of possession divided the plot equally " shows that the property was joint. It also appears from another portion of the judgment of the lower Appellate Court that Salimuddi looked after the minor Plaintiff's share and taking advantage of that fact let out the whole of the 7 bighas of land to the Defendants. 12. Having regard to the findings referred to above, we do not think it is necessary to remand the case. 13. The decree of the lower Appellate Court, however, must be varied to this extent, namely, that the Plaintiff, instead of getting a decree for the lands of Sch. Ka, will get a decree for joint possession with the Defendants (which of course will include Defendant No. 1.) of the entire 7 bighas of land consisting of the Sch 3. Ka and Kha,. Each party is to bear its own costs in this appeal as well as in the appeal before the Division Bench. The order as regards costs of the other Courts will stand. Walmsley, J. I agree. Page, J. I agree.