Judgment

SARKAR, J. : The only question for decision in this appeal is whether title had been acquired to certain lands by adverse possession.

2. Ram Ditta was a Hindu Jat of village Bhathal in District Bassi which was originally in Patiala but subsequently came to be included in Patiala and Eastern Punjab States Union. He died in April or May 1920 leaving certain lands which were the subject matter of dispute in the suit out of which appeal arises. Ram Ditta had a son named Jeona who predeceased him leaving a widow, Harnam Kaur. Harnam Kaur has a daughter, Kirpal Kaur and the latter is the appellant before us. Kirpal Kaur has a son of the name of Satwant Singh. Ram Ditta had certain collateral relations and the dispute was between them on the one hand and Harnam Kaur and Kirpal Kaur on the other. These collaterals are the contesting respondents in this appeal.

3. On Ram Ditta s death Harnam Kaur took possession of the lands, and on 24-8-1920, she obtained a mutation of the settlement records showing her as the owner of the lands in the place of Ram Ditta. By a deed dated 27-11-1929, she purported to make a gift of half of the lands to Kirpal Kaur on the occasion of the latter s marriage. Thereafter an attempt was made to obtain a mutation of the settlement records showing Kirpal Kaur as the owner of the lands given to her but on the objection of the collaterals the mutation was refused on May 12, 1930. This gift gave rise to various litigation both civil and criminal between Harnam Kaur and Kirpal Kaur on the one hand and the collaterals on the other. Mutual friends intervened to put an end to this unhappy state of affairs and at their efforts a settlement of the disputes was arrived at. On 6-2-1932, a document was executed by Harnam Kaur whereby she agreed that the lands would belong to her for her life and after her death to Kirpal Kaur for the latter s life and that none of them would be entitled to sell or mortgage the lands. The document further stated that Harnam Kaur had previously created a mortgage on the lands and that she would have the right to create another mortgage on them to pay off certain specified debts due by her and such mortgage would be binding on the collaterals but after her death there would be no other burden on the collaterals. This document was never registered. In 1936, Harnam Kaur created another mortgage on the lands and this mortgage was subsequently transferred to Satwant Singh, son of Kirpal Kaur. In 1939, Harnam Kaur again made a gift, this time of the entire lands, to Kirpal Kaur & the latter thereafter obtained a mutation of the settlement records showing her as the owner of the lands in the place of Harnam Kaur. This eventually brought about the institution of the suit out of which the present appeal arises.

4. This suit was filed in March, 1945, by some of the collaterals against Harnam Kaur, Kirpal Kaur and Satwant Singh impleading certain other collaterals who did not join as plaintiffs, as defendants. It sought a declaration that the gift of the lands by Harnam Kaur to Kirpal Kaur and the mortgage of 1936 were illegal and were not binding on the collaterals who were the then reversionary heirs of Ram Ditta. The suit was contested by Harnam Kaur, Kirpal Kaur and Satwant Singh.

5. The Court of first instance framed the following issues for trail:

1. Are the plaintiffs the collaterals of Jeona?

2. Is the property in dispute ancestral?

3. Was the mortgage in dispute effected for legal necessity?

4. Is the gift in dispute valid according to custom?

5. Is the suit time barred?

6. Had Harnam Kaur acquired a right to the lands by adverse possession at the time of gift to Kirpal Kaur?

6. The first five issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs, and the sixth against them. With regard to the sixth issue it appears to have been admitted before the learned trial Judge by both parties that according to the general custom governing the parties a widow of a pre-deceased son, as Harnam Kaur was, was entit