1. By this judgment, it is proposed to dispose of the Civil 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (plaintiffs in the main suit) against the judgment and decree, dated 26.06.2014, of the learned District Judge, Leh and Ladakh, whereby he has upheld the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2014 of the learned Sub Judge, Leh and Ladakh.

2. The background facts of the case in a nutshell are that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit against the respondents/defendants, before the trial court, seeking declaration, partition, possession and injunction in respect of land measuring 70 Kanals and 11 Marlas, comprising survey Nos. 591, 4612, 4613, 4619 and 4629 situate at Shenam (Old Leh road).

3. In the suit, the appellants/plaintiffs pleaded that the land in question belonged to Tsewang Rafstan, who was succeeded by Tsewang Nurbo Doi and Sonam Kunzom as his legal heirs. The appellants/plaintiffs, claim to be the daughters and son of Sonam Kunzom, who was related to Tsewang Rafstan, as his daughter. The respondents/defendants, are the grandchildren of Tsewang Nurbo Doi, who was the son of Tsewang Rafstan. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the respondents/defendants are in the unlawful possession of the suit property and although they were asked to partition the suit property, yet they failed to do so which constrained them to file the suit. The appellants/plaintiffs have placed on record the certified copies of the Annual Record for the year 1970-71, Khasra Girdawari for the year Rabi 2011, mutation orders passed on the dates 03.12.2004 and 17 of Jeth 1986 Bikrami as also the pedigree table.

4. The respondents/defendants resisted and controverted the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiffs in their written statement filed in answer to the plaint. They took a number of preliminary objections including the one that the suit is recklessly time barred. They plead it further that the predecessor-in-interest of the parties, Tsewang Rafstan, died prior to Jeth 1986 Bikrami, leaving behind a son and two daughters and on the death of Tsewang Rafstan, when the succession opened the same was governed by the Budhist Succession, under which the son only was entitled to inherit and succeed to the estate of his father. They further contended that the right of the daughters to inherit the interest of property was recognized only after J&K Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into vogue. According to the respondents/defendants the succession regarding the property of Tsewang Rafstan, having been acted upon much prior to the year 1956, as per the law prevailing at the moment, the predecessors-in-interest of appellants/defendants, Sonam Kunzom, did not have any right to inherit the property of Tsewang Rafstan. It is also pleaded that the mutation of inheritance in respect of the estate of Tsewang Rafstan, was attested in favour of his son Tswang Nurbo Doi, the predecessors-in-interest of the respondents/defendants, and the predecessors-in-interest of appellants/plaintiffs Sonam Kunzom could not inherit the estate of Tsewang Rafstan, for being a daughter as she was not entitled to succeed to the property of her father as per the law applicable at that moment. The respondents/defendants proceeded to state that the suit property has been in their uninterrupted possession and in the possession of their predecessors-in-interest for the last more than six decades and during this interregnum neither Sonam Kunzom, nor her legal heirs ever challenged the mutation of inheritance attested in favour of the respondents/defendants and their predecessors-in-interest.

5. In that premises, the respondents/defendants have pleaded that the appellants/plaintiffs have no right in the suit property and, as such, they are not entitled to any relief. The respondents/defendants have also relied upon the same set of documents as have been placed on record by the appellants/