JUDGMENT : P.C. Misra, J. - The sole plaintiff in title suit No. 72 of 1977 of the court of subordinate Judge, Baripada filed this appeal against the confirming judgment passed by the District Judge, Baripada in title Appeal No. 10-M of 1981. She having died during pendency of the appeal her legal representative have been substituted in her place as appellants. The sole defendants in the said suit also died during pendency of this appeal and his legal representative are 1/a to represented through guardian appointed by the court. 2.The suit is one for declaration of plaintiffs title over the properties described in schedule 'B' of the plaint and for recovery of possession from the defendant. The relationship between the original plaintiff and the original defendant may be seen from the genealogy given below: Genealogy Lokanath Singh | Budhulal = Suni = Sitaram | ___________________|_____________________ | | Debi Padamini (Planff.) = Radhamonan - Govinda Singh | Lokanath Singh (Defendant) Plaintiffs case is that the original ancestor Lokanath Singh died leaving behind Budhumal Singh as his son and Budhumal died leaving two daughters, namely, Debi and Padmani and the widow Suni. Padmani is the plaintiff case. Suni subsequently married one Sitaram singh and 3 sons have been born out of their wedlock. Lokanath had left behind 48 mans of land. According to the plaintiff, there was an amicable partition of the said property in which the three sons of Sitaram were given 24 men and the balance 24 mans were inherited by the two daughters of Budhulal, namely, Debi and Padmini. Debi's husband is Radhamohan and her son is Lokanath singh, the original defendant. According to the plaintiff, Radhamohan was cultivating the whole of the land falling to her share and she was being given a portion of the produce by Radhamohan. About 5 years prior to the suit he did nit give any share of the produce to her which reason the plaintiff has filed the suit praying for the aforesaid reliefs. 3. The defence case was Radhamohan was an illatom-son-in-law of Sunil Bewa and was in possession of the suit land along with his wife, after the death of his wife Debi he and his son,defendant possessed the suit land and the having been in possession of the same for more than 12 years, they have accrued learning title by adverse possession. The defence case was Radhamohan was an illatom-son-in-law of Sunil Bewa and was in possession of the suit land along with his wife, after the death of his wife Debi he and his son,defendant possessed the suit land and the having been in possession of the same for more than 12 years, they have accrued learning title by adverse possession. 4.The learned trial court after framing the issue and considering the evidence adduced before him, care to a conclusion that the plaintiff and the mother of the defendant jointly got the suit property in an amicable family arrangement. It also recorded a finding that the plaintiff become the exclusive owner of the suit land on the death of the Debi which took place 30 to 40 years back. The trial court than considered the question of possession and came to hold that the defendant and his father had been exclusively processing the suit land by which processes they acquired title thereto by adverse possession. 5. The plaintiff preferred title appeal No. 10-M of 1981 in the court of the district Judge, Baripada and the learned appellant court confirmed all the findings of the learned trial court and dismissed the appeal. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants in this case has challenged all the aforesaid finding and the conclusion reached by the learned courts below on various grounds. I do not want to examine the evidence of the possession on the basis of which the learned court below have recorded a finding that the defendant have successfully prove this exclusive possession in respect of the suit land, the reason being that from the admitted case of the parties question of exclusive possession alone would not determine the fate of the suit. The undisputed facts are the Budulal was the original owner of the lands which came to be inherited by his children. It is not disputed that there was an amicable arrangement between the parties in which the sons of sitaram, the second husband of the suit got 24 mans of land and the balance was left to the share of the two daughters. It is not disputed that there was an amicable arrangement between the parties in which the sons of sitaram, the second husband of the suit got 24 mans of land and the balance was left to the share of the two daughters. It is not question of decision in this case as to weather the three sons of Sitaram were entitled to a share and if so, the extent thereof, because the parties to the suit have accepted the possession and their dispute relates to 24 mans of land which was allotted to the two daughters of Debi and Padmini in the amicable partition, through the plaintiff alleged in the plaint that after the death of Debi, the plaintiff become entitled to the whole of the learned trial court, i do not understand how the plaintiff, who is a sister of Debi would inherit the property on the death of Debi in preference to her son, the defendant. therefore, the position would be that Debi and Padmini were the owners of 24 mans of land which fell to their share in the amicable partition admitted to have taken place in the family. In other words, they became co-owners and, therefore, co-sharers in respect of the said 24 mans of land. In this context exclusive possession by one of them would in law amount to possession of both and this is the reason why a co-sharer cannot acquire title by adverse possession. The only manner in which the co-sharer can acquire title in respect of the interest of the other co-sharer is by ouster which case has not at all been made out by the defendant in the written statement. Therefore, mere exclusive possession of defendant as found by the learned Courts below would not mature to title against the plaintiff who happens to be a co-sharer in the absence of pleadings and proof (sic) ouster. In this view of the matter, the plea of adverse possession must be discarded as misconceived. The court below having proceeding to find title with the defendant by adverse possession, the finding must set aside. 7. The plaintiff having prayed for recovery of possession on the basis of title, she would be entitled to a decree for joint possession unless the defendant proved that her title has been extinguished by any process of law. The court below having proceeding to find title with the defendant by adverse possession, the finding must set aside. 7. The plaintiff having prayed for recovery of possession on the basis of title, she would be entitled to a decree for joint possession unless the defendant proved that her title has been extinguished by any process of law. As already stated the title of the plaintiff could be extinguished only by successfully proving her ouster and not otherwise. The same having not been done, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as aforesaid. I would, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Courts below and declare title of the plaintiff in respect of schedule 'B' lands along with her co-sharer, namely the original defendant. It maybe noted that during the course of argument, it was clarified by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that 24 mans of land which originally fell to the share of both the sisters have been reduced in area in the mean time by the date of the suit for which a little more than 21 mans has been described in Schedule 'B'. There would, however, be no order as to costs of this Court.