The legal consequences of succession rights under the Hindu Succession Act were affirmed, allowing recognition of co-ownership based on prior possession and statutory provisions.

1. This second appeal arises out of judgment and decree dated 29/04/2003 passed by the learned lower Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree dated 17/01/2002 passed by the Trial Court in Civil Suit No.50 - A / 87. Learned lower Appellate Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

2. Respondent / plaintiff - Adhinram filed a suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction against his step mother - Leela Bai, the original defendant, on the pleadings inter alia that he is the son of Kehri who died prior to 1940. As pleaded, respondent / Leela Bai was step mother with whom, Kehri had performed 'choori' marriage. According to the plaintiff, his father - Kehri died prior to 1940, he being the only son and property in dispute described in schedule - C in the capacity of Maurusi (occupancy tenant), only plaintiff - Adhinram succeeded to the property and his step mother did not get any right in the property as a female successor. It was also pleaded that at the time of death of Kehri, plaintiff was minor, the disputed property was being managed by his mother and her name was also recorded without notice and knowledge of the plaintiff and taking undue advantage of this, when defendant - Leela Bai applied for partition by moving application before the Revenue Authority on 02/03/1987, cause of action arose for the plaintiff to seek declaration and permanent injunction.

3. Leela Bai, in her written statement denied plaintiff's claim and stated that Kehri died 35 - 40 years before the date of filing of her written statement and was survived by Adhinram, Leela Bai and two daughters - Bela Bai and Ghasnin Bai who were born out of wedlock of Kehri. Defendant's case was that the property in dispute was not the ancestral property but Kehri was absolute owner. Defendants denied that Kehri was occupancy tenant. According to the defendants, by application of Personal Law of Succession applicable to Hindus prior to coming into force of Succession Act, after death of Kehri, his widow - the defendant also succeeded to the property in equal share along with Adhinram. According to the defendants, Kehri died after 1948. It was also pleaded that after death of Kehri, the defendants also succeeded to the property and that was duly recorded in that capacity but the plaintiff did not raise any objection to the same nor took any remedy for long 50 years. Therefore, the suit itself is barred by limitation.

4. Learned Trial Court framed eight issues which included an issue for determination as to whether the plaintiff succeeded to the property in dispute after death of his father and also whether the plaintiff is the sole successor after death of his father in respect of the disputed property described in Schedule C admeasuring 17.58 acres.

5. Learned Trial Court, after allowing parties to lead oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff's suit was not only barred by limitation, otherwise also, his mother / the defendant - Leela Bai became absolute owner of the property after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act , 1956 (for short 'the Act of 1956').

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. Learned lower Appellate Court, however, reversed the finding of the learned Trial Court with regard to succession and held that the appellant could not have succeeded to th