Judgment Raj Kishore Prasad, J. 1. These three Letters Patent Appeals, which arise out of Second Appeals Nos. 951 and 1607, which arose out of Title suit No. 3/14 of 1946-1945, are against the decision of Mr. Justice B. N. Rai, who allowed only Second Appeal No. 951 of 1949 in part, and, set aside the decree passed in Title Appeal No, 105 of 1948, and, modified the decree passed in the suit. 2. One Achambhit Rai had two sons, namely, Baudh Rai and Ramsaran Rai, Baudh Rai had two sons, named Jaikishun Rai, defendant No. 1, and Ramkishun Rai. Jaikishun Rai had a son Lalji Rai, defendant No. 2, respondent No. 1. The other respondents are the sons of Lalji Rai. Ramsaran Rai had two sons, Rajnath Rai and Deonath Rai. Rajnath Rai died issueless leaving behind his widow, Parbati Kuer, who also died subsequently. Deonath Rai died leaving behind a son Askrit Rai. 3. The original plaintiff Most. Tetra Kuer brought the present suit for possession and partition in respect of khatas Nos. 29 and 35 on the basis of a purchase of the interest of Askrit Rai from him under a registered sale dated the 3rd November, 1938. According to her case, Askrit Rai was in joint possession and occupation of these two khatas with the defendants. Her case was that khata 29 was ancestral land of Askrit Rai, and, the defendants. Her case regarding khata No. 35 was that Askrit Rai got a portion of it by inheritance from Rajnath Rai. Askrit Rai separated from the defendants about ten years before the institution of the present suit in 1945, but the properties in suit were still joint, and, therefore, she sought partition of her moiety share in the two khatas. 4. The suit was contested by the defendants. The defence, so far as it is material, for the purpose of the present appeals, was that the genealogy set up by the plaintiff was wrong, and, that the suit was barred by limitation, because neither Askrit Rai, the vendor, nor, the vendee, the original plaintiff, had ever been in possession of the properties in suit within twelve years of the suit. 5. The first court found that the genealogy given by the plaintiff was correct, and, that Askrit Rai had half share in khata No. 29, but he had no share in khata No. 35. 5. The first court found that the genealogy given by the plaintiff was correct, and, that Askrit Rai had half share in khata No. 29, but he had no share in khata No. 35. The learned Munsif came to to the conclusion that although Askrit Rai was out of India for a very long time, and was not in possession of the disputed khata 29, yet his title was not lost by adverse possession of the defendants, because they were his co-owners, and, they had failed to establish ouster of Askrit Rai beyond twelve years of the suit. On these findings, the plaintiffs suit was partly decreed, and, she was granted a decree in respect of her moiety share in khata No. 29, but her suit in respect of khata No. 35 was dismissed. 6. After the aforesaid decree, the original plaintiff, Most. Tetra died, and, her heir, the present appellant, Ramkhelawan Singh, in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 20 and 22, was substituted. Both the parties appealed against the decree of the Munsif separately. The judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed on appeal, and, both the appeals were dismissed. 7. Against the aforesaid decrees, Ramkhelawan Singh, the legal representative of the original plaintiff Most. Tetra Kuer, filed Second Appeal No. 1607 of 1949, and, Jaikishun Rai filed Second Appeal No, 951 of 1949. Jaikishun died during the pendency of the appeal, and, therefore, his son Lalji Rai was substituted and transferred to the category of the appellant in his place. 8. Second Appeal No. 1607 of Ramkhelawan Singh was in respect of his moiety share in khata No. 35, while the appeal of original defendant No. 1, Jaikishun Rai, was in respect of the moiety share of Ramkhelawan Singh in khata No. 29. 9. Both the second appeals were heard together, and, his Lordship, Mr. Justice Rai, upheld the judgment of the courts below in respect of khata No. 35, and, therefore, dismissed Second Appeal No. 1607; preferred by the new plaintiff Ramkhelawan; but allowed Second Appeal No. 951, filed by the original defendant No. 1 Jaikishun, in part to this extent that the plaintiff was granted a decree to the extent of only l/3rd share in khata No. 29 in lieu of a moiety share as originally granted by the courts below. Against the aforesaid judgment of Rai, J., three appeals have been filed. Against the aforesaid judgment of Rai, J., three appeals have been filed. Letters Patent Appeal No. 20 is by the plaintiff-respondent in Second Appeal No. 951, whereas Letters Patent Appeal No. 22 is also by the plaintiff-appellant but in Second Appeal No, 1607 of 1949, and Letters Patent Appeal No. 27 is by the present defendant-appellant Lalji Rai, in Second Appeal No. 951. 10. These three Letters Patent Appeals have been heard together, and, therefore, this judgment will govern them all. 11. In order to appreciate the submissions made by the parties before this Court, it is necessary to state that the survey in respect of khata No. 29 took place in 1903, and, in the survey record of rights in respect of khata No; 29 Askrit Rai is recorded for one share, Most. Parbati, widow of Rajnath Rai for one share, and Jaikishun and Ramkishun, sons of Baudh Rai, are jointly for one share. 12. The survey in respect of khata No. 35 took place in 1911, and in the survey record of rights, only Jaikishun and Most. Farichha Kuer, widow of Ramkishun Rai, are recorded jointly in respect of khata No. 35. 13. In Letters Patent Appeal No, 22, which is in respect of kbata No. 35, the contention of Mr. Harinandan Singh, who appeared for the plaintiff-appellant, was that khata No. 35 was also ancestral inasmuch as it was acquired by the joint family which had got khata No. 29 as its nucleus. He further contended that Mr. Justice Rai had found the plaintiffs genealogy to be not correct, but in my opinion, there is no substance in this contention, because Mr. Justice Rai has accepted the findings of the courts below that the plaintiffs genealogy is correct. He only referred to the recital in the sale deed and to the plaintiffs statement in paragraph 2 of the plaint in order to show that the plaintiff had taken no inconsistent position; otherwise the appeal was decided on the footing that the genealogy of the plaintiff was correct. It has been found on the basis of the recital in the sale deed as well as on the plaintiffs statement in para. It has been found on the basis of the recital in the sale deed as well as on the plaintiffs statement in para. 2 of the plaint and the survey record of rights that Rajnath Rai became separate from Askrit Rai, Jaikishun and Ramkishun, before 1903, otherwise the widow of Rajnath could not have been recorded in the survey record of rights as owning 1/3rd share in khata No. 29. If, therefore, the family became separate before 1903, then the acquisition of khata No. 35 must be held to be by the two sons of Baudh Rai, alone because otherwise in the survey record of rights, the final publication of which took place in 1911, Askrit Rai also would have been recorded in respect of khata No. 35. The question whether khata no. 35 was ancestral, or self-acquired has been considered by all the courts below, and, all have concurrently found, on the materials on the record, that khata No. 35 was the self-acquisition of Jaikishun and his brother Ramkishun, and, that therefore, the plaintiff had no share in it as she had not adduced any evidence to show that Askrit had also contributed anything for the acquisition of the lands of khata No. 35. Jn my opinion, -this concurrent finding of fact is a correct finding on the materials on the record, and, therefore, it was rightly affirmed by this Court by the learned Single Judge. The decision of Mr. Justice Rai on this point, is therefore, correct, and must be affirmed. 14. In Letters Patent Appeal No. 20, which is directed against the decree, given by Mr. Justice Rai, for 1/3rd only in khata No. 29, Mr. Harinandan Singh contended that Mr. Justice Rai is wrong in holding that the possession over the entire property left by Rajnath Rai after the death of his widow Parbati Kuer was that of a trespasser, and, that as it had not been shown that the defendants got into possession of the entire property of Rajnath Rai within twelve years of the suit, the plaintiff could not get a decree for more than 1/3rd share as recorded in the survey record of rights. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention also of Mr. Singh. In my opinion, there is no substance in this contention also of Mr. Singh. On this finding based on the survey record of rights and other materials Rajnath Rai became separate from Askrit Rai and the two sons of Baudh Rai before 1903, when the survey record of rights in respect of khata 29 took place. Askrit Rai was near to Ranath Rai than Jaikishun and Ramkishun, or Lalji Rai. After the death of Most. Parbati Kuer, Askrit Rai being the son of Deonath Rai, the own brother of Rajnath Rai, would in law be the person entitled to inherit the property of Rajnath Rai; and Jaikishun and Ramkishun, who were the sons of the paternal uncle of Askrit Rai, would be no heirs to Rajnath Rai as long as Askrit Rai was alive, or, he left behind any issue. In such circumstances, if Jaikishun and Ramkishun took possession of the properties of Rajnath Rai after Most. Parbati Kuers death, they would take possession of those properties not as heirs to Rajnath Rai, but obviously as trespassers, because they had legally no right to the property of Rajnath in presence of Askrit Rai. In this view of the matter, the possession of Jaikishun and Ramkishun over the entire share of Rajnath Rai in khata No. 29 would be adverse to that of Askrit Rai, and his adverse possession would begin from the date of the death of Parbati Kuer. There is no evidence that she died within twelve years of the suit. In such circumstances, the plaintiff having failed to prove that Most. Parbati Kuer died within twelve years of the suit, or that the defendants got into the possession of the share of Rajnath Rai in khata No. 29 within twelve years of the suit, the plaintiffs suit would obviously be barred by limitation. Mr. Justice Rai, therefore, has taken the correct view of law, and has rightly held that in the eye of law the possession of Jaikishun over the entire property left by Rajnath Rai was not the possession of a co-owner qua that property with Askrit Rai, but that of a trespasser, and, therefore, the plaintiffs suit regarding Rajnaths share in khata 29 was barred by limitation. The plaintiff therefore, would be entitled to partition, and possession of not more than his own 1/3rd share in khata No. 29 as recorded in the survey record of rights. Mr. Justice Rai, therefore, was correct in modifying the decrees of the courts below. The decision of Mr. Justice Rai on this point is, therefore, correct and must be upheld. 15. In support of his appeal, Letters Patent Appeal No. 27 Mr. D. N. Verma, who appeared for defendant No. 1, appellant, contended that the plaintiff was entitled to only 1/4th share in khata No. 29, and not even to 1/3rd as decreed by Mr. Justice Rai. His contention is that khata No. 29 was admittedly the ancestral property belonging to the common ancestor Achambhit Rai, and, therefore, after his death half share went to Ramsaran Rai, the father of the two brothers, Rajnath Rai and Deonath Rai, father of Askrit Rai, and the other half share went to Baudh Rai, father of Jaikishun and Ramkishun. He, therefore, contends that Rajnath and Deonath would, accordingly, get half, that is, each of the two would get 1/4th in khata No. 29. Deonath Rai, therefore, having got 1/4th in khata No. 29, Askrit Rai would also be entitled to only 1/4th, and not 1/3rd as decreed by Mr. Justice Rai, or even half as claimed by the plaintiff. In my opinion, this contention cannot be accepted, because the survey record of rights records Askrit Rai as having 1/3rd share in khata No. 29. There is no material before us to show as to why, and how, Askrit Rai came to be recorded for 1/3rd share, and not for 1/4th share as contended by Mr. Verma. The courts below have taken into consideration the survey record of rights, the correctness of which has not been challenged by any party nor there is any evidence to show that the presumption of correctness attaching to the survey entries has been rebutted. Askrit Rai, therefore, must be held to have 1/3rd share in khata 29, if not more, in view of these circumstances, I think the modified decree passed by Mr. Justice Rai is correct. 16. In the result, all the three appeals fail, and, they are dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. Ramaswami, J. 17 I agree.