This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.9.80 passed in Title Appeal No. 58 of 1976 passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff in Title Suit No. 134 of 1973. 2. Plaintiff-respondent instituted Title Suit No. 134 of 1973 in the Court of learned Sadar Munsiff, Dibrugarh for declaration of right, title and interest over fifty percent of the suit land measuring 10 bighas, 2 kathas and 14 lechas, described in the schedule to the plaint and for partition and recovery of possession of her share. Plaintiff's case was that late Sonaram Dehingia was the original owner of the suit land measuring 1.0 bighas 2 kathas and 14 lechas. Late Sonaram had two sons namely, late Jogeswar Dehingia and late Anu Dehingia. After the death of Sonaram, both of his sons became owners thereof. Late Jogeswar married one Parua and late Anu Dehingia married one Kausalya. Plaintiff is the only child (daughter) of Anu through Kausalya. Late Jogeswar died childless leaving behind his widow Parua. After death of Jogeswar, Parua started living with Anu Dehingia as his mistress and out of their illicit relation defen­dant No.l, Naba Kanta was born. After death of Anu Dehingia., Parua started living with another man named Lili Gogoi and defendant No.2 and 3 were born through Lili Gogoi. Although Defendants were not entitled to any part of the suit land and the plaintiff lawfully inherited the entire suit land, however, out of affection for defendant No.l, plaintiff, has laid claim for half of the suit land measuring 1 OB 2K 10 L in the suit, for declaration of her right, title and interest over 5B IK 5 L and for partition and for recovery of khas possession thereof. 3. Defendant No.l Naba Kanta contested the suit by filing written statement contending amongst other that there was a valid marriage between Anu Dehingia and Parua according to Ahom Custom and he was the legiti­mate child of Anu and was entitled to inherit the property left by Anu and that plaintiff having been out of possession for a period exceeding 12 years, the suit was barred by limitation. 4. In the hearing both the parties adduced evidences in support of their respective claims. 4. In the hearing both the parties adduced evidences in support of their respective claims. The learned Munsiff on appreciation of the evidences on record held that there was no valid marriage between Anu and Parua and the defendant Nabakanta was not a legitimate child of Anu and that the suit was not barred by limitation. On the basis of the finding by the judgment and decree dated 21.7.76, the learned Munsiff decreed the plaintiff's suit. Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, defendant preferred Title Appeal No.58 of 1976 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh. Learned Assistant District Judge by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. The defendants have thereafter approached this Court in this second appeal. 5. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law :- (1) Whether the right of inheritance of defendant No.l is a legal bar being the issue of Anu and Parua whose marriage was under the prohibited degree ? (2 Whether right title and interest of the respondent in respect of the suit land was extinguished under section 27 of the Limitation Act ? (3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff was barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act ? 6. I have heard Mr. D. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. J. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent. Mr. D. N. Baruah has submitted that the finding of the learned Courts below that there was no valid marriage between Anu and Parua is perverse, inasmuch as, the evidences on record have clearly established that according to Ahom customary law, a valid maniage took place between Anu and Parua. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the relevant part of the evidence in support of the claim that there was valid marriage between Anu and Parua according to Ahom custom sometime between 1940 to 1942 and Nabakanta was born in 1943. The learned counsel has drawn my attention to the relevant part of the evidence in support of the claim that there was valid marriage between Anu and Parua according to Ahom custom sometime between 1940 to 1942 and Nabakanta was born in 1943. On the question as to whether the plaintiff's right has been extinguished by the adverse possession of the suit land by the defendant No.l and the plaintiff's suit was barred under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the finding of the Courts below is erroneous and perverse, inasmuch as, evidence on records clearly established that the plaintiff's right, title and interest was extinguished by adverse possession by the defendant No.l. 7. Mr. J. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that no substantial question of law arises out of the finding arrived at by the learned Courts below that there was no valid marriage between Anu and Parua. The finding being based on apprecia­tion of evidences, in second appeal this Court may not appreciate the evidence and come to a different finding even if the finding arrived at by the learned Courts below is erroneous. The learned counsel has submitted that no evidences adduced by the defendant indicating the date on and from which, the possession of the suit land by the defendant No.l became adverse to the plaintiff. Defendant has not made cut any case by leading cogent evidence that his possession of the suit land was continuously adverse to the plaintiff for more than 12 years. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidences on records arrived at finding that defendant failed to establish by any cogent evidence that his possession was adverse for a period of 12 years, and this Court in this second appeal may not interfere with the finding. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that the possession of one co-heir of the entire land can not operate as adverse to other co-heir. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf on the appellants as well as on behalf of the respondent. It has been submitted at the bar that defendant Nabakanta died during the pendency of the suit and the present appellants were substituted. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf on the appellants as well as on behalf of the respondent. It has been submitted at the bar that defendant Nabakanta died during the pendency of the suit and the present appellants were substituted. It is well settled that to establish some custom, there must be pleading of the specific custom and the person who take shelter under the custom must adduce cogent evidence in support thereof. In the instant case, there is no specific pleading of Ahom custom under which the defendant wanted to take shelter. It is also well settled that burden of proof of custom in derogation to general law, lies heavily on the party who set up such custom. It must be established that custom, so set up was recognised by the society and it had all along been followed. On perusal of the evidences I do not find that the defendants has been able to establish existence of Ahom custom which recognised the alleged marriage between Parua and Anu or that the alleged marriage between them was valid according to Ahom customary law. The finding arrived at by the Courts below can not be held to be erroneous and perverse. As to the question whether the suit is barred by limitation, it is well settled that possession of one co-heir is considered in law as possession of all the co-heirs and when one co-heir is found in possession of the property it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. In the case of P. Lakshmi Reddy vs. L. Lakshmi Reddy, AIR 1957 SC 314 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held : "... The possession of one co-heir is considered in law, as possession of all the co-heirs when one co-heir is found to be in possession of the properties, it is presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The co-heir in possession can not render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heirs' title. The co-heir in possession can not render his possession adverse to the other co-heir not in possession merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part in derogation of the other co-heirs' title. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to constitute ouster." Defendant has not adduced any cogent evidence to establish that there was open assertion of hostile title coupled with exclusive possession and enjoy­ment by him to the knowledge of plaintiff for a period of more than 12 years. As such, there is no intirmity in the decision of the Courts below that defend­ant failed to establish that the suit was not barred by limitation. For the foregoing reason, I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed with cost throughout. The ad-interim order staying execution of the impugned decree stands vacated.