ORDER
One Jankibai was the occupancy tenant of land measuring 58.96 acres in the District of Narsimhapur. It appears that the tenant committed default in payment of rent. Therefore, the revenue authority sold the said plot of land towards the realisation of the dues. One Mullu Prasad, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants purchased the property at the said auction sale. Subsequently, in the year 1952, Jankibai filed a suit for cancellation of auction sale of land in favour of Mullu Prasad. The said suit was numbered as Suit No. 35-A/52. During the proceedings, a compromise was effected between the parties whereby half of the land was agreed to be given to the plaintiffs and remaining half was allowed to be retained by Mullu Prasad. The suit was decided in terms of the compromise on 9.4.1952. Choudhary Ajmer Singh, the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents filed two suits claiming title to the land in dispute on the ground that despite the compromise decree, he continued to remain in possession over the Solid plot of land and. therefore, he has acquired title by adverse possession. The trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The said judgment of the First Appellate Court was affirmed by the High Court. It is, in this way, the appellants are in appeal before this Court. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants urged that the view taken by the High Court is patently erroneous. His argument is that assuming the defendant did not come in possession over the said plot of land within a period of three years of the compromise decree, the plaintiff would not acquire title to the land by adverse possession. According to him, for claiming adverse possession, the plaintiffs have to prove that they had been in adverse possession for a period of 12 years. We find substance in the argument. 3. It is neither alleged nor proved that the plaintiffs had been in adverse possession over the land for a period of 12 years or there was a complete ouster of defendant. Further, that compromise decree shows that Jankibai and the defendant were the co-owners and. therefore, the plea of adverse possession was not available to the plaintiffs against a co-owner 4. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.