This is a plaintiffs appeal under the Letters Patent against the decision of a single judge of this court allowing a second appeal before him and dismissing the plaintiffs suit with certain observations.

The facts out of which the present appeal arises may be summarised as follows :-

The plaintiff brought a suit for possession of 9 Knls. and 2 marlas. of land comprising of survey No. 20 of Khewat No. 185 of village Danger Pora district Baramulla. The plaintiffs case was that she was the ower of the lands in dispute and was in possession of this land when she was forcibly dispossessd by defendant No. 1 who had purchased the said land from one Aziz Meer. The plaintiff further averred that by a private partition which took place between various co-sharers of the village, the land in dispute had fallen to her share and she was in possession of the same. On these allegations, the plaintiff brought the present suit for cancelling the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 and for possession of the land in suit.

The suit was contested by defendant No. 1 who pleaded inter alia that there was no private partition between various co-sharers and that the entire survey No. 20 was in exclusive possession of Aziz Mir who was a co-sharer having one half share in the entire Khewat. The allegation of the plaintiff about previous partition between various co-sharers and her forcible dispossession by defendant no 1 was also denied by defendant No. 1.

The suit had a chequered career in as much as the suit was in the first instance dismissed by the Munsiff Sopore but on appeal the decree of the Munsiff Sopore was set aside and that the suit; was decreed. On second appeal to this court, Nair J. remanded the case by his order dated 3-6-1960 directing the trial court to strike fresh issues and decide the suit. After remand the suit was again dismissed by the trial court by its judgment dated 20-12-1962. The defendants went up in appeal against the decree of the Munsiff and the appellate court by its judgment dated 31-3-1964 reversed the decision of the Munsiff and decreed the suit. Thereafter the defendants went up in second appeal to this court which was allowed by Bhat J. and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed with the observations that the right of defendant No. 1 under the sale deed taken from Aziz Mir would he subject to the result of partition proceedings.

It is against this judgment that the plaintiff has filed this appeal before us.

All the .courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff was not able to. prove that she was in possession of the lands in dispute or that she was dispossessed. The courts below have also recorded a concurrent finding of fact that Aziz Mir was a co-sharer to the extent of one half share in the entire Khewat and was in exclusive possession of the lands in dispute. These findings of fact could not be and have not been disputed before us by Mr. ,Chaku learned, counsel for the appellant.

The only point that was convassed before the two appellate courts was as to whether or not Aziz Mir was competent to transfer. the land in dispute in favour of defendant No. 1 Wali Ganai. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the plaintiff has been that since Aziz Mir had only one. half share in the Khewat, he must be deemed to have one half share in all the survey numbers and as he had already disposed of land exceeding his share in survey No. 20 he was not competent to make a further disposition in favour of defendant No. 1. In other words it was argued before the courts below that for the purpose of judging the competency of Aziz Mir to transfer the land to the plaintiff, it is the Khasra No, which should be taken as the unit to determine his share. Before us it not disputed that although survey No. 20 comprised of 36 Kanals and 12 Marlas, the sale in favour of defendant No. 1 exceeded his half share of 18 Kanals and six marlas. The learned Su