Short Note : 1. The case of the plaintiff was that the suit lands, being the ancestral property, were held by the joint family comprising of Nohru and his cousin brother Angori About two years before his death, Angori demanded partition from his brother Nohru and the same was also partially effected in respect of the residential house and mess. Thus, according to the plaintiff, there was disruption of the joint family. However, the agricultural holding comprising of about 52 acres in which both Nohru and Angori had equal share could not be partitioned by metes and bounds because Angori fell ill and after suffering for about two months died, leaving behind his widow and the plaintiff being his sister. Within a year of the death of Angori, his widow remarried some other person. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Angori, and remarriage of his widow, she became entitled to inherit the interest and share of his brother Angori. It was not in dispute that Angori died in or about the year 1935 and the remarriage of his widow also took place within a year i.e. by the year 1936. Respondent Kaushalya Bai filed a partition suit in the year 1968, which gave rise to the present appeal. Defendant-appellants, inter alia, contended that even if the plaintiff had any right title or interest to claim half of the suit holding, the same became barred by limitation and the defendants had perfected their rights as exclusive owners of the entire holding by adverse possession. It was also contended that according to the law of succession governing the devolution of the occupancy holding, the defendants alone became entitled to the entire suit bolding by survivorship. The trial Court found that the story of permissive possession could not be established. The trial Court was also of the opinion that the suit was barred by limitation. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by observing that since the plaintiff was a cosharer, possession of the defendants could not be treated as hostile or adverse, because the same was on her behalf also and as such there was no question of the suit being barred by limitation. The lower appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by observing that since the plaintiff was a cosharer, possession of the defendants could not be treated as hostile or adverse, because the same was on her behalf also and as such there was no question of the suit being barred by limitation. After holding that according to the provisions of the C.P. Tenancy Act, which were in force at the relevant period in or about the year 1935-36, the law of survivorship was not applicable and the devolution of the holding of an occupancy tenant was governed by personal law of inheritance. The plaintiff undoubtedly being the sister in the absence of any other nearer heir inherited the interest of Angori. The lower appellate Court accordingly allowed the claim for partition and passed a preliminary decree for the same. Held: The first contention raised on behalf of the appellants, however, needs to be mentioned for simply being rejected. The legal position in this respect is well settled by the repeated decisions construing the provisions of section 11 of the C.P. Tenancy Act, wherein it has been held that according to the said provisions, the devolution of the interest of an occupancy tenant was governed by the personal law of inheritance alone and did not pass by survivorship. It has been rightly held by both the Courts below that the suit holding did not devolve on defendant No.1 by survivorship. Pewati Bai v. Gouribai, 1960 JLJ 729 , Sunderlal v. Damdibai, F.A. No. 179 of 1968 decided on 4-8-1977, relied on. 2. It is true that the general rule is that possession is referable to a lawful title and between the co-owners, possession of one is referable to the title of other. But a case where there has been ouster, is an exception to this rule. In the present case, the exclusive possession continued with defendant No.1 for a considerable long period of about more than thirty years. The way he dealt with the property while remaining in possession was prima facie to the exclusion of the plaintiff, who despite having the knowledge of the same, did not raise any objection and sat silent for a considerable long period and one fine morning after about 30 years came with a suit for partition. The way he dealt with the property while remaining in possession was prima facie to the exclusion of the plaintiff, who despite having the knowledge of the same, did not raise any objection and sat silent for a considerable long period and one fine morning after about 30 years came with a suit for partition. In these circumstances, when the facts are, known the principle that possession is referable to a lawful title cannot be availed of by the plaintiff. As the plaintiff failed, to establish her case of permissive possession, the suit brought by her in year 1968 was rightly held to be barred by limitation by the trial Court. Munnalal v. Kashibai, AIR 1947 PC 15 , Permanand v Sobhit, 1957 MPLJ SN 160, Ishaq Ali v. Mst. Unnasbi, 1958 JLJ 424 , relied on. Suit dismissed. Appeal allowed.