ISHARI Vs. GAHIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated October 11, 1969. In order to appreciate the facts, the following pedigree-table would be helpful :-

(2.) The trial Court found that the plaint was not properly valued for the purpose of court-fee. The plaintiff made up the court-fee as ordered by the Court. It held that Mst. Parshinni had not been heard of for more than seven years by the persons who would have naturally heard of her if she were alive, that the plaintiff was an heir of Mst. Parshinni and that defendants 1 to 3 had not become owners by adverse possession. The trial Court, however, did not give any specific finding on issue No. 4. In view of the aforesaid findings, it decreed the suit of the plaintiff. Defendants 1 to 3 went up in appeal before the District Judge, Hoshiarpur, who observed that the only issues contested before him were issue Nos. 3 and 4. He held that in the absence of any evidence regarding the exact date of death of Mst. Parshinni, the plaintiff would fail. He consequently decided issue No. 4 against her. He reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 3 in view of finding on issue No. 4. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. She has come up in appeal to this Court.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned appellate Court has not decided issue Nos. 3 and 4 correctly and that it has erroneously upset the judgment and decree of the trial Court. He further submits that the appellant is entitled to inherit the property of Mst. Parshinni.