These findings have been accepted by the appellate Court and are numberlonger in dispute before us.
The family appears to have properties in three villages, Mahalpur, Bahuwal and Wasuwal.
D 10 and D 12 dated 7 12 1928, Ex.
It is to be numbericed that about two years prior thereto Wali Singh, the plaintiff, had been adopted by Kirpal Singh.
D 8 dated 15 6 1920.
By Ex.
The net result of these mutations was finally to show in respect of the lands in mouza Bahuwal the plaintiff, Wali Singh, as owning the half share of Kirpal Singh and the defendant, Sohan Singh, as the owner of the half share of Pritam Singh.
D 1 dated 15 7 1937, Exs.
A and B dated 26 2 1943, and Exs.
D 8 dated 15 6 1920.
Having thus brought about the entry showing Pritam Singh as the sole sharer of Shiv Singhs half share, Sohan Singhs name was thereafter substituted for that of Pritam Singh by Ex.
The dates of birth and adoption of Wali Singh were both matters in dispute in the suit.
In view of these two events, Kirpal Singh brought about mutations in the Revenue registers in respect of the properties in the three villages.
The plaintiff, Wali Singh, son of Shiv Singh was admittedly adopted by Kirpal Singh.
Hence the appeal to this Court.
But it is number disputed that the mutations in respect of these two villages also went through the same companyrse bringing about finally the entries in the Revenue Records in the name of Wali Singh and Sohan Singh as equal half sharers.
But it was found by the trial Court that Wali Singh was born on 2 3 1904, during the life time of Kahan Singh and that he was adopted on 24 8 1918, long after Kahan Singhs death which occurred on 12 11 1906.
Both Mohar Singh and Shiv Singh predeceased him.
By Ex.
P 11 dated 28 3 1907, shows that the mutation was made in favour of Kirpal Singh for one half share and Wali Singh and Pritam Singh together for the other half share.
He urges that even if knowledge of the wrong entries in the Revenue records of the year 1920 did number furnish the plaintiff a cause of action since he was then a minor, there are a number of subsequent proceedings which indicate number only that he was perfectly well aware of his situation from at least the year 1928 but also that he throughout companyducted himself in his relations with the respondent as an equal sharer and went so far as to become a party to a joint application for partition of the family properties in equal shares between himself and the defendant so late as in the year 1943.
The mutations in respect of mouza Bahuwal are to be gathered from Exs.
But it is number disputed that similar mutations were then made in respect of properties in the other two villages.
P 11 relates only to mouza Mahalpur.
The following pedigree shows the relationship KAHAN SINGH Kirpal Singh Mohar Singh Shiv Singh Wali Singh Pritam Singh Plaintiff Sohan Singh Deft.
On Kahan Singhs death there was mutation regarding his properties in the Revenue Records.
Pritam Singh died on 19 5 1920, leaving the defendant, Sohan Singh, as his sole heir.
Kahan Singh left him surviving only one of his sons, Kirpal Singh and two great grandsons, Wali Singh and Pritam Singh, sons of Shiv Singh.
D 9 and D 4, dated 1 6 1920 and Ex.
D 9, Wali Singh was mutated for Kirpal Singh.
D 4, Wali Singhs name was removed from the register as a companysharer with Pritam Singh in respect of Shiv Singhs half share.
The facts out of which this litigation arises are as follows The suit properties admittedly belonged to one Kahan Singh who is the companymon ancestor of both the parties.
The suit was decreed by the trial Court.
Jagannadhadas, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for declaration that the property, details of which are given in.
