K. Kannan, J. - (1.) Questions of law raised: The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in the second appeal:- (i) Whether the plaintiff as a daughter to Hira Singh was not a heir at all as per the customary law prevailing in State of Punjab (District Ludhiana)? (ii) Whether the lower appellate Court was in error in reversing the finding of the plaintiff's status as the daughter of Hira Singh and Parmeshwari when there were several documentary evidences in support of her claim to such status, duly appreciated by the trial Court? (iii) Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in finding adverse possession in favour of the defendant when the defendant had not established his continuous hostile possession of the property for 12 years prior to suit?
(2.) The second appeal is brought at the instance of the plaintiff whose suit was dismissed on finding her heirship as established but still holding that the defendant prescribed title by adverse possession. In appeal filed by the plaintiff, the lower appellate Court reversed the finding also on her heirship as pleaded by her and confirmed the decision relating to the issue of limitation. The appeal is brought under the circumstances on essentially three questions which I have formulated as propositions of law arising in this case. II. The relationship of plaintiff to last male owner-trial Court's finding wrongly reversed :
(3.) In this case the trial Court had found the plaintiff as the daughter born through the marriage of Hira Singh with Parmeshwari. The appellate Court reversed it on a consideration of evidence of three witnesses which, according to the appellate Court, was discrepant. The appellate Court held that PW1 Pritam Singh had stated that plaintiff was the heir of Hira Singh and the mother was Parmeshwari and she had settled at Kanpur and that in younger age, she was called as Nihalo and married to Niranjan Singh and that she had no other sister. None of these facts as elicited through him was inconsistent with the plaintiff's own case nor was any of these statements found to be incorrect. On the other hand, the birth certificate which had been filed showed that the plaintiff had been born on 03.01.1928 and a female child by name Nihalo was born to the father Hira Singh son of Mansiyana. It will, therefore, be seen that PW1's evidence literally connected the plaintiff to Hara Singh as his daughter through the birth certificate (Ex.P2). PW2-Amar Singh had stated that he knew the plaintiff as a daughter of Parmeshwari and her first name was Nihalo. This again synchronizes with the Ex.P2 and the correct statement of fact regarding the mother. The reason for discrediting his evidence was, he also stated that Nihalo had another sister by name Gurdialo, who was married to one Kartar Singh. Therefore, the evidence was not discrepant about her own status as a daughter of Parmeshwari with the name @ Nihalo but discrepant with reference to whether she had a sister or not. PW3-Kartar Singh made a statement that Niranjan Singh was his brother-in-law and his (Niranjan Singh's) wife was Surjit Kaur. Surjit Kaur is the plaintiff in this case. He was also correct about husband's name as Niranjan Singh. PW3's wife's name was Gurcharan Kaur and he did not know the name of her mother and that she was married earlier to Niranjan Singh. I do not know as to how this evidence could be seen as again contradictory to the evidence of PW1, for, he has only stated that he had married earlier to Niranjan Singh's marriage to the plaintiff and if he stated that his wife was Gurcharan Kaur, there is no contradiction anywhere with reference to the plaintiff's status. The appellate Court was, therefore, absolutely perverse in making an inference which was not possible from the manner the facts are elicited.;