JUDGMENT :

M.K. Hanjura, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of a Civil 2nd Appeal filed by the appellants (defendants in the main suit) against the judgment and decree, dated 26th of November, 2012, of the learned District Judge, Leh, whereby, while setting aside the judgment dated 11th of October, 2008, passed by the Court of learned Sub-Judge, Leh, the 1st Appellant Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein.

2. The background facts of the case, put in a nutshell, are that the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein filed a suit against the appellants before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Leh, seeking declaration and partition in respect of the land measuring 79 Kanals and 4 Marias covered under Khewat No. 32 as per the annual record of the year 1991 Bikirmi (68 Kanals and 18 Marias under khewat No. 43 and also 9 kanals and 14 Marias under khewat No. 02) as ownership land and land measuring 23 Kanals and 4 Marias comprising of Khewat No. 02, as tenancy land, situate at village Likir, Leh, Ladakh.

3. In the suit, the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 herein, pleaded that they are entitled to 1/2 share of the total property in question. They demanded the partition of the suit property as also a direction to handover their shares to them. It is stated that the defendants/appellants herein failed to do so and even denied the title of the plaintiffs in the suit property. It is further pleaded in the plaint that the defendants/appellants herein 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 plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have given the pedigree table in the plaint.

4. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appellants herein resisted and controverted the pleadings of the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein 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 pleaded that the plaintiffs/Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein have no right in the suit property and, as such, they are not entitled to any relief. They also pleaded that, the suit land is not a joint property but it is a separate property of the defendants No. 1 and 2. Sonam Morup the father of the defendant No. 1 and the grandfather of defendant No. 2 being eldest sons of Tsering Morup, inherited all the property of Tsering Morup as per the local custom of Leh whereby the eldest son is entitled to inherit all the property. Tsering Dolma and Phunchuk Yangzom who were daughters of Tsering Morup did not inherit the property since they were given sufficient properties during their marriage as per local custom. The other sons of Tsering Morup including the plaintiffs did not have any right to inherit the property in view of the local custom. It is further stated that plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 demanded their share in the suit property some 15 years back, but defendant 1 and 2 denied any right, title or interest of the plaintiffs in the suit property.

5. Vide order dated 29th of June, 2002, of the learned trial Court, the following issues were framed in the suit:

1. Whether the suit property is undivided property of joint family? .....OPP

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, plaintiffs are un-recorded co-shares of the suit property and they are entitled 1/2 share of the property?.....OPP

3. Whether the defendants grandfather being elder brother of the parties have got property according to local custom prevalent at that time?.....OPD

4. Whether the suit is time barred? ....OPD

5. Relief?

6. By order dated 24th of August, 2006, the learned trial Court framed an additional issue, which reads as under:

"4-A. Whether defendant No. 1 and 2 have become owners of the suit land by adverse possession on account of their possession over the suit land for the last 20 years."

After hearing the parties, the learned t