JUDGMENT R.C. Lahoti, J. 1. The plaintiff whose suit for declaration of title over a piece of agricultural holding has been dismissed by the two Courts below, has come up in appeal. 2. Vide Order dated 21-11-1978, this appeal has been admitted for final hearing by this Court on the following substantial question of law :- Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law in not following the ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ishak Ali v. Unnas Bi 1958 JLJ 424 when undisputedly the appellant alone was found in actual physical possession of the suit property for a continuous period of 14 years after getting himself alone recorded as Pucca tenant ? 3. It is not disputed that Hafiz Khan, the plaintiff/appellant and late Gaji Khan had jointly secured land S. No. 3362 area two bigha 10 biswas situated at Bhind on Patta from the ex-proprietor in Samvat year 1997. Late Gaji Khan expired in the year 1949. Basharat Khan, the defendant, is his brother. In the year 1954 Hafiz Khan, the plaintiff/appellant alone moved an application before Tahsil for conferral of Bhumiswami rights, on his alone, u/s. 38 of M. B. Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. The application was allowed on 6-6-1955 conferring the plaintiff with the rights of Pucca tenant on the land in suit. On 20-3-1969, Basharat Khan, the defendant, moved an application before Tahsil seeking a relief that in the proceedings initiated by the plaintiff, and since concluded, he too be conferred with one-half rights of Pucca tenant in the land. This application was allowed by Tahsil but ultimately the Board of Revenue, the highest Tribunal in the hierarchy of revenue Courts, set aside the order of Tahsil. With the result, the order dated 6-6-1955 conferring the Pucca tenancy rights on the plaintiff alone remained standing. During the pendency of these proceedings, on 9-3-1976, Basharat Khan, the defendant alienated his rights in the property to Samir Kumar, the defendant No. 2 and grandson of late Yadunath Singh, Advocate appearing for Basharat Khan in the proceedings before the revenue Court. During the pendency of these proceedings, on 9-3-1976, Basharat Khan, the defendant alienated his rights in the property to Samir Kumar, the defendant No. 2 and grandson of late Yadunath Singh, Advocate appearing for Basharat Khan in the proceedings before the revenue Court. On 4-10-1971, the plaintiff filed the present suit alleging that ever since 1949, he had been in exclusive possession of the suit land in denial of the rights of Gaji Khan and the defendant Basharat Khan, canvassing hostile title exclusively in himself to the exclusion of all others and thereby having perfected his sole title by adverse possession. He also prayed for a relief of declaration that the sale-deed dated 9-3-1970 executed by the defendant No. 1 in favour of the defendant No. 2 was null and void in so far as the rights of the plaintiff were concerned. 4. The suit has been contested by the defendants 1 and 2 on all the counts pleading that the defendant No. 1 would be entitled to one-half rights in the suit property. 5. The Courts below have found that the plaintiff alone moved an application in the year 1949 for conferral of Pucca tenancy rights in the suit land in him alone. Consequent to his application having been allowed, he alone was recorded as pucca tenant in the revenue papers ever since 1955. The averment that the plaintiff alone has been in possession of the suit property ever since the year 1949 has been found by the trial Court not proved while the appellate Court vide para 11 of its judgment has held that since the death of Gaji Khan i. e., the year 1949, the plaintiff alone has been in possession of the suit property. 6. 6. The facts found by the Courts below and the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff/appellant go to show that he has been in exclusive possession of the suit property since the year 1949 i. e., for 22 years before the date of institution of the suit, that at least in the year 1954, i. e., 17 years before the institution of the suit he had started openly canvassing his own exclusive title in the suit property to the denial of the rights of the defendant Basharat Khan; that his claim was recognised by the revenue Courts in the year 1955; and that ever since then he alone has been recorded in the revenue papers as the oucca tenant of the suit land. The defendant Basharat Khan has himself admitted in his statement that he was in service not permanently settled at one place and chose to transfer the suit property in favour of the defendant No. 2 which facts lend support to the plea (c)f the plaintiff that the defendant was not in possession of the suit property. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the plaintiff had at any time after the death of Gaji Khan in the year 1949 shared the yield of the suit property with the defendant Basharat Khan or had at any time acknowledged the right of the defendant in the suit property. 7. The above said facts amply go to prove the hostile possession of the plaintiff/appellant over the suit property ever since the year 1949 or at least since the year 1955. The Courts below have refused to grant relief to the plaintiff guided solely by the principle that ordinarily possession of One of the co-owners would be deemed to be on behalf of all the co-owners. The Court below have overlooked that this principle has its own limitations. If the facts and circumstances of a case go to show that possession of one could not be deemed to be on behalf of all the co-owners or that if one was canvassing his Own exclusive title, in denial of the right of all others over the statutory period such one would be justified in claiming that his hostile possession had ripened into full ownership. 8. 8. A Division Bench of this Court having reviewed several authorities on the point, has held on Ishak Ali v. Unnas Bi 1958 JLJ 424 :- The rule of law is that possession is referable to a lawful title, and between co-owners, possession of one is referable to the title of the other, unless there has been an ouster. But where possession has continued for a considerable period of time exclusively with one co-owner and prima facie to the exclusion of other or others, this principle can hardly be applied. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the Courts below committed an error Of law in not applying correct principles to the facts found while inferring non-acquisition of title by adverse possession by the plaintiff. On the facts found and in view of the overwhelming evidence available on record, and the probabilities of the case, the only inference permissible to be drawn was that the plaintiff had perfected his title by adverse possession over the suit property. 10. In M/s. Sir Shadi Lal S. & G. Mills Ltd. v, I. T. Commr., Delhi AIR 1987 SC 2008 , the Apex Court has said, non-appreciation gives rise to question of law (Sic)