- (1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated October 11, 1969. In order to appreciate the facts, the following pedigree-table would be helpful :- Labhu was the last male-holder of the property in dispute. He died in early fifties. On his death, his property was inherited by his widow Mst. Parshinni as life estate. She became full owner of the property after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). She had not been heard of for the last more than seven years before the filing of the suit by the plaintiff and others who would have heard of her in case she was alive. Therefore, she should be presumed to have died. The plaintiff is the daughter of Sunder, the brother of Labhu, and thus is an heir to the estate of the husband of Mst. Parshinni. The defendants 1 to 3 are in illegal and wrongful possession of the property left by her. She instituted the suit for possession of the property in dispute. The suit was contested by the defendants 1 to 3. The defendants, inter alia, pleaded that she was not the daughter of Sunder son of Shehzada, that the defendants were in possession of the property in dispute for more than 13 years after the death of Labhu and had become owner by adverse possession and that the plaintiff was not entitled to inherit the property. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :- (1) Whether the plaint has been properly valued for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction O.P. (2) Whether Parshinni widow of Labhu has not been heard of for the last seven years by the persons who would naturally have heard of her O.P. (3) Whether the plaintiff is the heir of Mst. Parshinni O.P. (4) Whether Parshinni had died after the enforcement of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 O.P. (5) If issue No. 2 is proved whether the defendants have become owners of the land in suit by adverse possession O.D. (6) Relief.
(2.) The trial Court found that the plaint was not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee. The plaintiff made up the court-fee as ordered by the Court. It held that Mst. Parshinni had not been heard of for more than seven years by the persons who would have naturally heard of her if she were alive, that the plaintiff was an heir of Mst. Parshinni and that defendants 1 to 3 had not become owners by adverse possession. The trial Court, however, did not give any specific finding on issue No. 4. In view of the aforesaid findings, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 went up in appeal before the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who observed that the only issues contested before him were issue Nos. 3 and 4. He held that in the absence of any evidence regarding the exact date of death of Mst. Parshinni, the plaintiff would fail. He consequently decided issue No. 4 against her. He reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3 in view of finding on issue No. 4. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. She has come up in appeal to this Court.
(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned appellate Court has not decided issue Nos. 3 and 4 correctly and that it has erroneously upset the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further submits that the appellant is entitled to inherit the property of Mst. Parshinni.;