ORDER:- This is a plaintiffs appeal and it arises out of a partition suit No. 32 of 1976 filed by the present appellants claiming 2/3rd share in the three houses detailed in schedules A, B, and C of the plaint. The suit having been decreed with respect to the property detailed in schedules B and C and dismissed with respect to the property described in schedule A, the plaintiffs have come up in the present appeal. The defendants have not filed any appeal and, therefore, the dispute is confined to the property described in schedule A which is a house with open piece of land and a latrine.

2. The suit was instituted on the pleas that one Khaira was a common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants No. 1, 8 and 9. After his death, the property was inherited by his widow Smt. Guriha. On the death of Smt. Guriha, the property was inherited by her two daughters and one son, namely, Mst. Tazia Alias Zainab and Mst. Nuria and son Hussain. All these persons came in joint possession of the property left by Smt. Gurhia. Smt. Gurhia, according to the plaintiffs, had three houses described in schedules A, B, and C of the plaint. After the death of Husain (son), his widow Gafooran defendant No. 1 inherited the share of her husband.

3. The plaintiffs are the sons of Smt. Nuria. Mst. Tazia alias Zainab had four issues out of which two issues, namely, Dadu Ali alias Peer Mohd. and Chairun died issueless and remaining two issues, namely, Mst. Mahengi and Fakir Mohd. were impleaded as defendants No. 8 and 9 respectively. It was further pleaded that Smt. Gafooran sold her share to one Imam Khan by means of two sale deeds and after death of Imam Khan his heirs defendants No. 2 to 7 succeeded to the property.

4. The plaintiffs claimed 2/3rd share in the property described in schedule A.

The suit was contested by the defendants by filing a separate set of written statements. The plea, as set up in the plaint, was denied. The defendants No. 2 to 7 who really contested the suit, pleaded that the house in suit did not belong to Khaira. They further pleaded that their father purchased the entire house described in schedule A by means of two sale deeds dated 13-12-1952 and 19-12-1959. It was further pleaded that earlier their father came in occupation of the property purchased by means of the aforesaid two sale deeds as exclusive owner and after his death, the answering defendants became the exclusive owners of the disputed property. It was further stated that they are residing in the disputed property without intervention of any body in exercise of their right of ownership.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial Judge:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs are co-sharers in the houses in Suit? If so the extent of their share?

2. Is the suit barred by time?

3. Is the suit barred by estoppel and acquiescence?

4. Is the suit under-valued and court fees paid is sufficient?

5. Whether defendants 1 to 7 or any of them have acquired title by adverse possession over the house in schedule A?

6. Is the suit had for non-joinder of necessary parties as alleged in para 13 of W. S. filed by defendants No. 2 to 7?

7. To what relief, if any are the plaintiffs entitled?

6. Issues No. 1 and 5 were decided together and it has been held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share in the house described in schedules B and C, but their claim in respect of schedule A property was dismissed as barred by time. It was further held that the plaintiffs have lost their share, if any, by adverse possession of defendants No. 2 to 7 who have purchased it through their father from Smt. Gafooran. Under issue No. 2 is was found that the suit is barred by time in respect of schedule A property, but was within time in respect of schedules B and C property, Issue No. 3 was decided in the light of the finding recorded under Issues No. 1 and 5. Issue No. 4 was already decided earlier. Issue No. 6 was not pressed and, therefore, it was decided in favou