D 7 and D 8.
in affirmative.
Ownership over the suit property was claimed because of succeed of acquisition of title on the basis of adverse possession too.
Decree for possession was also prayed the respondents case that he being the son and the appellant being a window of Ranjit Singh, he alone was entitled to succeed to the property as per the custom prevailing in the society.
The appellate companyrt decided Issue No.3 relating to limitation in favour of the respondent and disbelieved the case of the appellant regarding her having become owner of property by adverse possession.
The appellant, who was the sole defendant, asserted that as per custom she also was entitled to succeed.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit by answering Issues 3,4 and 5 against the plaintiff, though it had answered Issue No.1 reading whether the plaintiff is the sole owner of the property in the suit ?
The appellant carried the matter to the High companyrt in second appeal which dismissed.
As to the claim of the appellant to succeed because of special custom.
the respondent is the son of Ranjit Singh.
the learned Addl.
Hence this appeal.
A Perusal of the judgment of the trial companyrt shows that following were issues 3.4 and 5 Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation ?
he filed a suit, out of which this appeal arises, for seeking declaration that he was the exclusive owner of the property and mutation entries made in the name of the appellant are incorrect.
On appeal being preferred, the Additional District Judge decreed the suit.
This is as below The learned companynsel for the defendant has, on the other hand, urged that according to the custom also, Kartar Kaur was entitled to succeed t the property left by Ranjit Singh and in that regard the earned companynsel has tried to refer to the statements of some of the witnesses examined by the defendant and he has also referred to the mutations Ext.
HANSARIA,J. The appellant is window of one late Ranjit Singh who was admittedly the owner of the property in question.
