JUDGMENT This second appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10-6-1968 by which the Additional District Judge Shri P. N. Roy dismissed with costs their first appeal arising out of the trial Courts decree, dated 9th of November 1966, dismissing with costs their suit for possession by partition of one half share in the ingkhol (homestead) bearing patta No. 85/51-I.W. 2. The following pedigree table will help in appreciating the facts of the case: According to the allegations set out in the plaint the ingkhol in dispute was the ownership of Angousana Singh and on his death it was inherited equally by his two sons Atonsana Singh and Sanatomba Singh. Since Sanatomba Singh happened to be minor at the time of the death of his father, the ingkhol was mutated solely in the name of Atonsana Singh in the year 1908-09 subject, it was alleged, to the understanding that Sanatomba Singhs name shall also be incorporated in the revenue records no sooner he attained majority. However, before that understanding could take practical shape, the two brothers (Atonsana Singh and Sanatomba Singh) died. It was further alleged that firstly Sanatomba Singh and after his death his two sons, the plaintiffs, enjoyed joint possession session of the ingkhol along with Atonsana Singh and Priyokumar Singh. The plaintiffs as well as their fathers possession, it was added, was confined to the northern one half of the ingkhol where they used to grow vegetables, while the defendant No. 1 and his father had built a house in the southern half of the ingkhol. This arrangement by which the descendants of Angousana Singh had been jointly owning and possessing the ingkhol was disturbed by Priyokumar Singh after he managed to secure the mutation of the ingkhol in his own name in the year 1960. The plaintiffs challenged the validity of that mutation by appropriate proceedings before the Revenue Authorities but they failed to get the same reversed with the consequence that they were forced to file the suit resulting in the instant second appeal. 3. Another fact mentioned in the plaint was that the plaintiffs father Sanatomba Singh had purchased another ingkhol, bearing patta No. 85/52-I. W., with his own money on the adjacent north of the ingkhol in dispute. 3. Another fact mentioned in the plaint was that the plaintiffs father Sanatomba Singh had purchased another ingkhol, bearing patta No. 85/52-I. W., with his own money on the adjacent north of the ingkhol in dispute. This fact was stated in the plaint probably to forestall the plea of defendant No. 1 that ingkhol No. 85/52 had been inherited by the family from Angousana Singh. 4. Priyokumar Singh alone resisted the suit, the other defendants having been proceeded against ex parte. He admitted the correctness of the pedigree table given above. In substance, his defence was that the two ingkhols covered by patta Nos. 85/51 and 85/52 were the ownership of their grand-father Angousana Singh, that on the death of the latter the ingkhol under patta No. 85/51 was inherited by his father Atonsana Singh while the other ingkhol was inherited by his uncle Sanatomba Singh, that right from the date of the death of Angousana Singh the plaintiffs or their father had never enjoyed the possession of the ingkhol in dispute, and that as such their suit was barred by time. In the alternative he pleaded that he had acquired ownership of the entire ingkhol by prescriptive title. Quite a few other technical and legal objections were also adopted by the defendant No. 1. 5. The trial Court settled the following issues between the parties: (1) Whether R. K. Sanatomba Singh, the father of the plaintiffs., and R. K. Atonsana Singh had jointly inherited the ingkhol under patta No. 85/51 I. W. T., each having equal interest in it, from their deceased father R. K. Angousana Singh? (2) Whether the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 are the joint owners of the suit land under patta No. 85/51 by right of inheritance? And have they been continuing to possess the suit land jointly, the defendant No. 1 by constructing a house in the southern portion and the plaintiff by growing vegetables, etc. in the northern portion of the suit land? (3) Whether the ingkhol under patta 85/52 I. W. T. was the heritable share of R. K. Sanatomba Singh, or whether he got the same by purchase which was the heritable share of R. K. Anguousana Singh? in the northern portion of the suit land? (3) Whether the ingkhol under patta 85/52 I. W. T. was the heritable share of R. K. Sanatomba Singh, or whether he got the same by purchase which was the heritable share of R. K. Anguousana Singh? (4) Was R. K. Sanatomba Singh a minor in 1908-1909, and as such the entire land under patta No. 85/51 was recorded in the name of the elder brother R. K. Atonsana Singh above? (5) Is the suit maintainable in the present form? (6) Is the suit bad for defect of parties? (7) Is the suit barred by limitation? (8) Are the plaintiffs entitled to the reliefs as claimed? Issue No. 1 was decided by the trial Court against the plaintiffs by a process of reasoning which is not quite intelligible. It was held that the ingkhol was owned by. Angousana Singh, it had been inherited equally by his two sons, that since Sonatomba Singh permitted the ingkhol to be entered in the name of Atonsana Singh he must be deemed to have acquiesced in the complete ownership of the latter and also to have waived his own right therein, that as a consequence of acquiescence and waiver of the two brothers Atonsana Singh and Sanatomba Singh had not jointly inherited the ingkhol, and that as such the plaintiff had no right therein. The finding given on issue No. 2 was that the plaintiffs had never enjoyed the joint possession of the ingkhol and so their suit merited dismissal. The contention of defendant No. 1 that the ingkhol bearing patta No. 85/52 was also the ownership of Angousana Singh his grandfather, was negatived while deciding issue No. 3, the finding being that the ingkhol had been purchased exclusively by the father of the plaintiffs in the name of their mother. The issue was consequently decided against the defendant No. 1. Issues Nos. 4 and 7 were found against the plaintiffs while issues Nos. 5 and 7 against defendant No. 1. In the result the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. 6. The issue was consequently decided against the defendant No. 1. Issues Nos. 4 and 7 were found against the plaintiffs while issues Nos. 5 and 7 against defendant No. 1. In the result the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed with costs. 6. The learned Additional District Judge expressed the opinion, while dispossing of the appeal, that the only question that arose for decision before him was, to quote his own words, "whether the plaintiffs or their father were in joint possession with the defendant No 1 or his father since the year 1908" - vide para 11 of the judgment. In the preceding para 10 he happened to observe that "The plaintiffs could get their shares in the suit land if they were in possession over the suit land since the year 1908-1909." Shri B. B. Sen, representing the plaintiffs-appellants, vehemently criticised the approach of the learned Additional District Judge to the entire case. He submitted that since it had been held by the trial Court that the ingkhol in question had been inherited by Atonsana Singh and Sanatomba Singh from their father Angousana Singh, a finding which was not challenged by defendant No. 1, the learned Additional District Judge should have considered Atonsana Singh and Sanatomba Singh as tenants-in-common of the ingkhol and presumed, as required by well settled principles of law, that they were in joint possession of the land although Atonsana Singh may alone have been in occupation thereof, until, if at all, there had been ouster of Sanatomba Singh from the enjoyment of ingkhol either at the hands of his brother Atonsana Singh or the latters son Priyokumar Singh. Shri Sen submitted further, on the basis of the premises just stated, that the fate of the appeal before the Additional District Judge rested not on the point whether the plaintiffs suit was within time but on the plea raised by the contesting defendant that he had acquired ownership of one half share in the ingkhol, which once belonged to the plaintiffs father Sanatomba Singh, by adverse possession. Shri T. Bhubon Singh, appearing for Priyokumar Singh, urged equally forcefully, on the other hand, that before the plainiffs could succeed in the case it was obligatory on them to establish that they had come to the Court within time and as such the learned Additional District Judge had rightly posed the question for decision as mentioned in paras 10 and 11 of his judgment. I think the submissions made by Shri Sen appear to be sound in law and so must prevail. It may be appropriately mentioned that in the short concluding para No. 20 of his judgment the learned Additional District Judge took note of and then made a passing reference to the argument raised before him on behalf of the plaintiffs that the possession of one co-sharer is presumed in law to be the possession on behalf of all the co-sharers. It was admitted before him that the parties were governed by Dayabhaga system of Hindu Law in the matters of succession and inheritance. On this latter basis the Additional District Judge held, while dealing with that argument, that on the death of Angousana Singh his two sons would be merely co-owners of the land in dispute, that the plaintiffs had not been in possession of that land for a long time, and that consequently "even if they had any right or title in the disputed land it has been extinguished by lapse of time." 7. The principles bearing on the nature of possession of one co-owner vis-a-vis the other co-owners and when the possession of one co-owner becomes adverse to the other co-owners were clearly enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314 . It was held in that case that "it is well settled that in order to establish adverse possession of one co-heir as against another it is not enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession and enjoyment of the profits of the properties", and that "Ouster of the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession who claims his possession to be adverse, should be made out". The Supreme Court emphasised further that "the possession of one co-heir is considered in law. The Supreme Court emphasised further that "the possession of one co-heir is considered in law. as possession of all the co-heirs", and that "when one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title." It was further observed that "The co-heir in possession cannot render his possession adverse to the other coheir, not in possession, merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heirs title." Another two propositions laid down by the Supreme Court in the same case were: (1) "It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them, to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster", and (2) that "The burden of making out ouster is on the person claiming to displace the lawful title of a co-heir by his adverse possession." The Supreme Court had held earlier in the case of Mohd. Baqar v. Naim-un-Nisa Bibi, AIR 1956 SC 548 , that since "under the law possession of one co-sharer is possession of all co-sharers, it cannot be adverse to them, unless there is a denial of their right to their knowledge by the person in possession, and exclusion and ouster following thereon for the statutory period." It would follow from these principles that the test to determine if there is ouster of one co-owner by another is to see if the co-owner in possession has openly and unequivocally and to the knowledge of the other owners denied the title of the latter to the property. Until the ouster in that sense is established, the co-owner in possession must be presumed to be in possession on behalf of all the co-owners. Therefore, the two Courts below were not justified in the present case in deciding the fate of the suit only on the footing that it was barred by time. Until the ouster in that sense is established, the co-owner in possession must be presumed to be in possession on behalf of all the co-owners. Therefore, the two Courts below were not justified in the present case in deciding the fate of the suit only on the footing that it was barred by time. After the Courts had found that the plaintiffs father and his brother Atonsana Singh had inherited the ingkhol in dispute in equal shares on the demise of their father Angousana Singh and that the plaintiffs had inherited the estate of their father Sanatomba Singh, they were bound in law to presume the possession of the plaintiffs over the ingkhol in virtue of the fact that the physical possession was admittedly firstly with Atonsana Singh and after his death with the defendant No. 1 Priyokumar Singh each of whom was a co-owner in the ingkhol. In that context the proper course for the Courts to adopt was to find out if either the plaintiffs father or after his death the plaintiffs had been ousted from the enjoyment of the property and that ouster had lasted for 12 years. This obviously has not been done. It will be noticed that though defendant No. 1 had adopted the plea of prescriptive title, the trial Court had not cared to formulate any issue in that respect and that possibly accounts for considerable prejudice caused to the plaintiffs. 8. The learned counsel for the parties agreed at the bar that this Court should set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge and remand the case to him for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. However, I have decided to adopt a somewhat different course. I think a specific issue bearing on the plea of adverse possession should be settled between the parties and the case remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision after allowing the parties to lead evidence on that issue. Hence, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below, and remand the case to the trial Court on framing the following additional issue, bearing No. 7A: Whether the defendant No. 1 had acquired ownership of the land pertaining to ingkhol under patta No. 85/51-I. W. by adverse possession lasting for the statutory period? Onus on defendant No. 1. Onus on defendant No. 1. The trial Court will give reasonable opportunity to the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 for leading evidence in support and rebuttal of this additional issue and then decide the suit anew after taking the entire evidence into consideration. I leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court as also in the Court of the Additional District Judge. Order accordingly.