Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-19 86 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Munghyer, in Title Appeal No. 44 of 1981 reversing the judgment and decree dated 26-9-1981 passed by the Munsif-I, Munghyer, in Title Suit No. 38/6 of 1975-80. 2. At the admission stage under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the respondents have been noticed and heard both the parties on merit also. The plaintiff-respondents filed the suit for declaration of title and also for recovery of possession in respect of the suit land appertaining to plot No. 121, khata No. 55, Touzi No. 4884 of Mouza Ramchandrapur P.S. Jamalpur within the district of Munghyer as described in Schedule-II of the plaint. The area of the suit land is 17 decimals towards north. The admitted position remains that one Gohan Sab was the original owner of the whole of the suit plot measuring 34 decimals. He left behind two sons Sonu and Chhathu. Sonu left the place and settled at Midnapur in the State of West Bengal and Chhathu remained in the place and was managing the property. Chhathu died leaving behind two sons Panchu and Rameshwar. The defendants are the heirs of Ranchu and Rameshwar and also the purchasers from Chhathus heir in the year 1968. According to the plaintiffs, Sonu died leaving behind two sons Mahadeo and Sukhdeo, Sukhdeo died issueless and Mahadeo died leaving his wife Sharda Devi and one son Jagdish. The plaintiffs are the purchasers from Jagdish and Sharda Devi. According to the plaintiffs, Chhathus heirs and heirs of Sonu had privately partitioned their entire property and in the suit plot Rameshwar Sao and Panchu Sao got the allotment towards south measuring half of the suit plot, namely, 17 decimals and rest of the 17 decimals has fallen in the share of Sharda Devi and Jagdish towards north and the same has been purchased with specific boundary by the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs Sonus share have been duly mutated in the name of Sharda Devi and Jagdish Sao before Anchal Adhikari and their shares have been purchased by the plaintiffs by sale-deed dated 1-11-1968 and the plaintiffs names had also been mutated before the Anchal office. According to the plaintiffs Sonus share have been duly mutated in the name of Sharda Devi and Jagdish Sao before Anchal Adhikari and their shares have been purchased by the plaintiffs by sale-deed dated 1-11-1968 and the plaintiffs names had also been mutated before the Anchal office. But, as the defendants demolished the southern ridge which was the demarcating line between the plaintiffs and defendants, the plaintiffs made a complaint on 19-2-1971 before the police and a proceeding was started under Sec. 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was ultimately converted to a proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but on adjudication between the parties possessions have been declared in favour of the defendants and as such, the defendants had dispossessed the plaintiffs being armed with the order of the proceeding under Sec. 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence the present suit. The relief claimed in the suit is for declaration of tide over the suit land and for recovery of possession. There is also alternative prayer to the effect that if there was no partition between the heirs of Sonu Sao and Chhathu Sao, the Court may be pleased to partition the properties and a preliminary decree of partition may be passed for half share over the suit plot, 3. The defendants-appellants contested the suit by filing written statement. The usual pleas such as non-maintainability of the suit, that the suit being barred by the principle of waiver, estoppel and acquisence, etc. etc. have been taken. The genealogy as given by the plaintiffs have been admitted but according to the defendants, Sonu Sao in the early 40 had left the village and settled at Kharagpur in the district of Midnapur in West Bengal and died there. It was further contended that Sonu Sao was not married and Chhathu Sao remained in possession over the entire properties not only by way of survivorship but also when Sonu Sao left for West Bengal had delivered possession in favour of his brother Chhothu Sao and during this long period Chhathu Sao had death with properties exclusively without being interfered by any person and having no interference he made mortgaged to different persons. It was denied that Sharda Devi was the daughter-in-law of Sonu Sao and Jagdish Sao as his grandson. It was denied that Sharda Devi was the daughter-in-law of Sonu Sao and Jagdish Sao as his grandson. The existence of the predecessors of the vendors of the plaintiffs, namely, Mahadeo Sao has been totally denied. Private partition as alleged from the side of the plaintiffs had also been denied. The contesting defendants have purchased the entire area of suit plot No. 121 by registered sale-deed dated 20-6-1968 from Rameshwar Sao and Panchu Sao, sons of Chhathu Sao and the whole area of the suit plot remained in exclusive possession of the contesting defendants. It was further alleged that the mutation of the plaintiffs vendors are collusive one and the defendants-First party had no knowledge of the same and it was further contended that the defendants-first party and their vendors remained in exclusive possession of the property all along. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties several issues Were framed. On consideration of the evidence on record and mainly on the evidence being adduced by the defendants-vendors, it was held that Sonu Sao did not die issueless and the vendors of the plaintiffs were the descendants of Sonu Sao. The evidence of D.W. 5 was relied by the learned original Court but it was held that Sonu Sao or his descendants had never exercised their possession over the suit plot and from the documents filed from the side of the defendants it could be found that nowhere the. Sonus heirs had ever exercised their right over the property and Chhathu Sao and his heirs remained in exclusive possession for more than a period of limitation and hence the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. Sonus heirs had ever exercised their right over the property and Chhathu Sao and his heirs remained in exclusive possession for more than a period of limitation and hence the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. On appeal being preferred by the appellate Court on independent scrutiny of the materials came to the finding that the genealogy given by the plaintiffs was correct and be upheld the decision of the original Court that the plaintiffs vendors were descendants of Sonu Sao but the appellate Court reversed the finding of the original Court holding that although Chhathu Sao or his heires might be in possession as claimed from the side of the defendants but there was no proof to the effect that Sonu Sao or his heirs have completely been ousted and when ouster could not be proved the possession of Chhathu Sao or his heirs are to be construed as possession as a sharer in favour of all the co-sharers and adverse possession as claimed and decided by the original Court had been held to be bad in the eye of law as no ouster could be proved from the side of the defendants rather it could be found that the vendors of the plaintiffs had exercised their right over the property when they got themselves mutated after the death of Sonu Sao and Mahadeo Sao and when ouster could not be proved the plaintiffs have acquired title over the half portion and then decreed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property towards the northern side after having been demarcated by the authorities concerned. 5. The submissions made on behalf of the defendants-appellants is that the learned appellate Court had committed error of law while not giving independent reasons and discarding the reasonings given by the original Court regarding exclusive possession of the defendants vendors and thus acquiring title and perfecting the same by adverse possession. Learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents has supported the impugned judgment by submitting that for adverse possession between the co-sharers proof of ouster is a must and when such ouster could not be proved from the side of the defendants the finding of the appellate Court is proper and justified. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents has supported the impugned judgment by submitting that for adverse possession between the co-sharers proof of ouster is a must and when such ouster could not be proved from the side of the defendants the finding of the appellate Court is proper and justified. 6. It has now become settled principle of law as enunciated in 1998 Supreme Appeal Reporter (Civil) 693, Smt. Satya Gupta V/s. Brijesh Kumar, wherein it is held that since the appellate Court reversed the finding of the original Court and such reversal has been recorded on proper reasonings even if, the reasonings given by the trial Court has not been discarded then also the High Court under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure should not interfere with the decision of the appellate Court if such decision does not suffer from error of law or from misreading or non-reading of evidence resulting in miscarriage of justice. The apex Court has also gone to the extent that even if the appellate Court does not advert all the reasons given by the trial Court and gives it own reasonings for coming to a reversal judgment then also the High Court should not interfere under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure if the reasons given by the appellate Courtis the plausible reasons on the materials on record. In this connection -- , may be referred to. 7. On keeping in view the above position of law, I have carefully scrutinised the judgment of both the Courts below. Regarding the genealogy both the Courts below have come to the concurrent finding and, hence, there is nothing to be interfered with the original Court relied upon the documents of third parry and that of the mortgage-deed wherein the boundary given did not show the name of Sonu or his heirs in those sale- deeds and mortgage-deeds but the appellate Court held that those deeds being executed by the heirs of Chhothu Sao should not be taken into consideration for the purpose of ouster rather from the evidence of D.W. 5, it could be found that Jagdish and his mother Sharda Devi, who were the heirs of Sonu had always exercised their right over the property might be that they were not in physical possession. D.W. 5 in his deposition had gone to the extent that Sharda Devi and Jagdish had been in possession over the suit land. Moreover, it could be found that Jagdish and Sharda Devi had mutated their names and paid rent to the Bihar State in respect of their properties and in such position, it cannot be said that there was dispossession of the vendors of the plaintiffs completely from the suit property. 8. For proof of adverse possession only the possession for more than 1.2 years is not sufficient. It must be proved that such possession was continuous, peaceable, uninterrupted and to the knowledge of the real owner. When adverse possession is claimed against a co-sharer then it becomes more stringent to the effect that there must be a strict proof of complete ouster of the co-sharer from the suit property. In the present case, admittedly, vendors of the plaintiffs were co-sharers to the vendors of the defendants and in such a position there is necessity of proof of complete ouster but such proof of ouster has been nullified by D.W. 5 himself when he stated that Sharda Devi and Jagdish had exercised possession over their shares. Even if that statement is taken to be a stray one then also it remains not even if there was no physical possession of the vendors of the plaintiffs over the suit property but they were exercising their rights over the properties when they got their names mutated and were paying rent to the State of Bihar. Except a vague plea that Sonu being gone to Midnapur had never come back, there is no other evidence to the effect that there was complete ouster of Sonu or his descendants. The trial Court only considered about the physical possession and then arrived at the finding that the defendants vendors were having adverse possession against Sonu and his descendants. The question of ouster had not been considered which was the only vital point to be considered for the purpose of adverse possession against a co-sharer. The same point has been very able dealt with by the appellate Court and came to the finding that there was no proof of ouster. And hence, the adverse possession as claimed from the side of the defendants has been rejected. The same point has been very able dealt with by the appellate Court and came to the finding that there was no proof of ouster. And hence, the adverse possession as claimed from the side of the defendants has been rejected. The judgment of the appellate Court with reasons would cannot be interfered by this Court under Sec. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the decision arrived at is only plausible decision on the basis of the materials on record. Hence, the decree of the plaintiffs suit regarding their declaration of title cannot be interfered with. But, it appears that both the Courts had held that there was no specific partition amongst the co-sharers between the vendors of the plaintiffs and the defendants and the defendants have purchased more than what their vendors title was and the plaintiffs either having not got possession by their purchase or if oust off subsequently then also there was no specific possession. The plea of cutting of the ridge, etc. seems to be a plea for the purpose of cause of action of the suit. In that way, when there was no partition between the co-sharers i.e. vendors of both the parties then the plaintiffs cannot be held to be entitled to get specific possession over their half share over the suit plot and for that reason there was already an alternative prayer for partition from the side of the plaintiffs. It appears that the appellate Court regarding the operative part of the judgment had not considered the matter in its proper perspective and on that position this Court must interfere. The judgment of the appellate Court shall be upheld only with the modification that the plaintiffs right, title and interest over the suit plot for 17 decimals i.e. half of the suit plot shall be declared and a prelimianry decree should be there on such declaration and the suit shall proceed for preparation of final decree by making separate Takta as per procedure for a final decree in the partition suit. 9. Thus, the appeal is rejected with the modification in the operative part of the decree as mentioned above. In the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.