JUDGMENT S. Roy, J. The plaintiffs-appellant had filed T. S. No. 5/47 or 1962 for declaration of their right, title and interest in the suit property and for further declaration that the order passed in commutation case no. 2 of 1961-62 by the Anchal Adhikari, Patratoli, was not binding against them. 2. The facts on which they filed the suit are that the suit plots were ancestral property of the appellants and Ghur Oraon, The plots were recorded in the Revisional Survey in the name of Ghur Oraon. The appellants are the agnates of Ghur Oraon. Ghur being a member of Oraon tribe was governed by the Customary Law, After the death of Ghur in 1971, the suit property was allowed to be enjoyed by Musammat Daleo, widow of Johan predeceased son of Ghur. The respondent no. 1 is son-in-law of Musammat Daleo. He got the rent of the said land illegally commuted in his name and got the said order confirmed in commutation case no. 2 of 1961-62. The plaintiffs, therefore filed suit. 3. The respondent no. 1 and Daleo filed a joint written statement. In the written statement it was stated that respondent no. 1 was adopted Ghardamad by Musammat Daleo as directed by her husband, Johan, and her father-in-law Ghur Oraon. Respondent no. 1 is in possession of the suit properly in the capacity as Ghardamad since the time he was brought to their house. They asserted that the commutation of the rent in cash and the assessment of the same in the name of respondent no. 1 was perfectly legal and valid. It was stated in the written statement that the suit was barred by limitation. 4. Several issued were framed by the trial court. The trial court held that the respondent no. 1 was holding the suit property adversely to the appellants. It also found that the suit was hit by section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The trial Court also held that respondent no. 1 was not Ghardamad. The further finding of the trial court is that the order passed by the Anchala Adhikari, Patratoli was correct. On these findings the suit was dismissed. The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The lower appellate court held that the suit is barred by adverse possession. 1 was not Ghardamad. The further finding of the trial court is that the order passed by the Anchala Adhikari, Patratoli was correct. On these findings the suit was dismissed. The appellants filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court. The lower appellate court held that the suit is barred by adverse possession. If found that the suit was hit by section 34 of the specific Relief Ace. It is the finding of the appellate court that the order passed by the Anchala Adhikari, Patratoli was legal. 5. Mr. S. N. Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants submitted that in the written statement, there is no assertion that the respondent no. 1 was holding the property adversely to the appellants. In absence of such pleadings the trial court would not have framed an issue. Whether the suit was barred by adverse possession. He submitted that the finding of the trial court which has been confirmed by the court below that the suit was barred by adverse possession cannot be sustained. Mr. Singh has submitted that in paragraph 14 of the written statement it has been stated the suit is barred by limitation. I have perused that written statement. Mr. A. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents admitted that there is no specific assertion in the written statement that the suit was barred by adverse possession. In the absence of any such pleadings in the written statement the trial court was not justified in framing any issue in that regard and its finding that the suit was barred by adverse possession which has been framed by the court below cannot be upheld. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. Deled was the daughter-in-law of Ghur. His son Johan pre-deceased him. Under the Oraon customary law the widow is entitled to possess the property and appropriate usufruct of the same during her life time. Mussamat Daleo, therefore was entitled to hold the property and enjoy the usufruct of the same during her life time. It may be that the respondent no. 1 was cultivating the suit plots and he was the person who was in possession. It is not the case of respondent no. 1 that he was holding the property of Daleo adversely to her interest. For the reasons aforesaid, respondent no. It may be that the respondent no. 1 was cultivating the suit plots and he was the person who was in possession. It is not the case of respondent no. 1 that he was holding the property of Daleo adversely to her interest. For the reasons aforesaid, respondent no. 1 cannot be held to hold the property adversely to the appellants. 7. But the matter does not end there, On 1.3.72 Mostt. Deleo died when the appeal was pending In the court below. Mr. Kumar submitted that after the death of Mosamat Deleo, the appellants should have amended the plaint by adding the relief for recovery of possession and that having not been done the appeal is not maintainable. Mr. Singh submitted that since the appellants could not have prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property on the date the suit was filed on the ground that Musammat Daleo was then alive, a simple suit for declaration was maintainable. I have already noticed that under the Oraon customary law Musamat Daleo was entitled to and was in possession till the filing of the suit, the appellants were not entitled to seek further relief for possession. 8. The court is entitled to take into consideration the subsequent events. Mr. Kumar, submitted that after the death of Musamat Daleo, the appellants became entitled to pray for the recovery of possession. The appellants having not done so, the suit for declaration is not maintainable in view of section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. Mr. Singh refuted the arguments of Mr. Kumar by relying on the case of Shri Jethu Singh Bishan Singh Versus Kishan Singh Hira Singh and submitted that the appeal ought to be disposed of, keeping in view the relief that the appellants could have prayed on the date the suit was Instituted in that case, on consideration of several cases, of different High Court, It was held by a Bench of the Pepsu High Court that although a right has now accrued to the appellants to claim possession, their claim for declaration cannot be refused. No decision of this High court has been brought to my notice. In the case of Radha Rani Bhargawa Vs. Hanuman Prasad Bhargwa the Supreme Court considered the legal position. No decision of this High court has been brought to my notice. In the case of Radha Rani Bhargawa Vs. Hanuman Prasad Bhargwa the Supreme Court considered the legal position. In that case the alienation made by a widow was challenged by the reversioners who prayed for a declaration decree that the alienation was not binding on them. During the pendency of the case Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. The transferor-widow also died during the pendency of the case. The Supreme Court held that even if the plaint was not amended by adding the prayer for possession, the suit was maintainable but in that event if the reversioners were to get any benefit they must institute the suit for possession of the property within the period of limitation. Again in the case of Rameshwar and others Vrs. Jot Ram and ors, it was held that relief to the party must be judged to exist as on the date of the salt later development cannot defeat the right of reversioners. In the case in band there is no doubt that on the date the suit was filed the widow being alive, the appellants could not have claimed for recovery or possession Qua reversioners. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree or the courts below are set aside and the suit is decreed but there will be no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.