' MUHAMMAD. RAFIQ TARAR, J---This appeal by Mst. Waziran with the leave of this Court is directed against the judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby the appeal of the respondent was allowed, the finding of the Courts below that his suit was barred by limitation was set aside and the declaration prayed for in respect of Khata Nos. 214/202/205 and 215/206 was granted.
2. This appeal arises out of a civil suit filed by Ranjha respondent for a declaration that he was the owner of the suit land and the appellant had no connection whatsoever with it. On the death of last male holder namely Rakhu in 1939, half the land was mutated in the name of his son Ranjha respondent and the other half in the names of Mst. Waziran appellant and her sister Mst. Amiran, daughters of his predeceased son Sher Muhammad. After the marriage of Mst Amiran in 1943 her share was mutated in the name of the appellant to the exclusion of the respondent whose presence has been recorded in the attestation order dated 15-12-1943 (mutation Exh. D/4). The suit was dismissed by the Civil Court on 9-1-1964 as barred by time. The learned District Judge in appeal upheld the said finding of the trial Court vide judgment dated 7-11-1964. He also decided issue No.4 in favour of the appellant holding that having remained in possession for more than 12 years, she had perfected her title by adverse possession. The learned Single Judge in the RSA set aside the judgments and decrees of the Courts below and decreed the suit of the respondent. He formed two questions arising in the case as under:--
(a) Whether the family of Rakhu (last male holder) was governed by custom?
(b) Whether the suit was barred by time?
' As for the first question, the learned Judge agreed with the trial Court that the parties were governed by custom. However, as to the question of limitation he found that the appellant not being in possession in the disputed Khatas (214/202/205 and 215/206), the entries which showed her to be the owner in half share were of no significance and could be ignored by the appellant, therefore, no question of limitation arose. The issue regarding adverse possession which was found by the District Judge in favour of defendant, was not adverted to. The learned District Judge as per discussion in para. 10 of the judgment found that the parties were in joint possession as owners vide Exh. P.11, most of the land was being cultivated by tenants and the Jamabandi of 1951-52 also showed some land in self-cultivation of joint owners.
3. We have perused the Khasra Girdawari for the years 1956-60 and find that while Mst. Waziran appellant is shown as the owner of Khata No.217, Nawab is the cultivator. In Khata No.214, Ranjha and others (etc.) are shown as owners. They are in self-cultivation of Khasra No.180/3/2. The 'others' with Ranjha as per Jamabandi, Exh. D.3, are Mst. Waziran and Mst. Amiran. These entries appear to have missed the attention of the learned Single Judge. The other Khasra numbers are in the cultivation of the tenants.
4. After the marriage of Mst. Amiran, her share was mutated in the name of Mst. Waziran appellant in the year 1943 to the exclusion of the respondent. In the attestation order dated 15-12-1943, the presence of the respondent is recorded. This mutation had given a cause of action to the respondent and he could file a suit to claim the property. Furthermore Mst. Waziran had married prior to the partition and her right to hold the' property in dispute as limited owner had come to an end giving cause of action to the respondent for claiming the property or for declaration that Mst.
Waziran was not its owner. The present suit instituted by him in 1963 was clearly time-barred.
5. Having gone through the judgment of the learned District Judge we agree with the discussion and findings on issues Nos.4 and 5. The learned counsel for the respondent could not urge anything against the finding that appellant's right to hold the property in lieu of maintenance had come to an end on her marriage long before the partition of the sub-continent and she having remained in possession openly adverse to the interest of the respondent for more than 12 years had perfected her title.
' For the foregoing reasons this appeal is allowed, the judgment and decree of the High Court set aside and the suit of the respondent is dismissed. No order as to cost.