Adverse possession against a co-owner requires clear hostile possession; joint family management alone does not bar recovery.

Adverse possession against a co-owner was not made out because possession by a family member managing endowed property and religious affairs did not, by itself, amount to ouster or hostile occupation. The Limitation Act, 1908 required clear proof that the eldest brother and later the appellant held the property adversely for twelve years, and the record contained no specific issue, cross-examination, or inquiry on that point. The circumstances were consistent with joint family possession and did not show a denial of the plaintiff's rights. The plea of limitation therefore failed, and the plaintiff's right to joint possession and management was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff's claim to joint possession and management rights in the endowed property was barred by limitation on the footing of adverse possession.

Analysis: The claim turned on whether the possession of the eldest brother and thereafter the appellant had been adverse to the plaintiff for twelve years so as to bar recovery under the Limitation Act, 1908. In the context of a family endowment managed within a Hindu joint family, possession by one member in charge of the property and religious affairs did not by itself establish ouster of the other co-sharers. Adverse possession against a co-owner required clear proof of hostile possession, and the record disclosed no issue, cross-examination, or inquiry specifically directed to that question. The circumstances also supported the view that the management had remained consistent with joint family possession and not a denial of the plaintiff's rights.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation and adverse possession failed, and the plaintiff's right to joint possession was upheld.

---