R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE sole defendant is in appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bargarh passed in a suit for partition. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF's case, briefly stated, is that ananta and Dukhu, the predecessors of the plaintiff and the defendant were real brothers. Ananta died leaving behind his son Rama who is survived by Gunanidhi, the defendant. Dukhu died leaving behind his widow Laxmi and only daughter, the plaintiff. The properties described in schedule 'a' of the plaint were the ancestral properties of Ananta and Dukhu. Both the brothers during their life time lived separately and possessed the suit properties according to their share without there being partition by metes and bounds. Upon death of Dukhu, his half share in the suit properties devolved upon laxmi and on Laxmi "s death, upon me plaintiff. Laxmi was possessing those properties which were being possessed by her husband dukhu. When she became old and was unable to take up personal cultivation the defendant possessed all the properties and was giving 8 to 10 pudags of paddy each year to Laxmi towards her share. Upon her death, the defendant continued to possess the properties in the same manner and was giving 8 to 10 pudags of paddy to the plaintiff each year. Two years prior to filing of the suit the defendant stopped giving paddy to the plaintiff towards her share and also did not allow her to possess the properties. which were being possessed by her father, Dukhu. So, she requested the defendant for amicable partition and same having not been heeded to, she filed the present suit claiming half share in the suit properties. ( 3 ) THE case of the defendant in the written statement is that Ananta and Dukhu were all along living in joint mess and property. While living so, Ananta died leaving behind his only son Rama, and Dukhu was survived by his wife laxmi. Rama and Laxmi possessed the suit properties jointly till their death. On Laxmi's death branch of Dukhu became extinct. Asha. the plaintiff, is not the daughter of Dukhu. She was an orphan being distantly related to Laxmi through her father's side and out of pity, Laxmi brought and maintained her and when she grew old gave her in marrige. Rama and Laxmi possessed the suit properties jointly till their death. On Laxmi's death branch of Dukhu became extinct. Asha. the plaintiff, is not the daughter of Dukhu. She was an orphan being distantly related to Laxmi through her father's side and out of pity, Laxmi brought and maintained her and when she grew old gave her in marrige. The further case of the defendant is that he being the only surviving heir in the family has been possessing the entire suit properties to the exclusion of the plaintiff for more than twelve years. ( 4 ) ON the above pleading, the learned trial Court struck four issues, out of which the two main issues were : (1) Whether the plaintiff is the daughter of Dukhu? and (2) Whther the defendant has perfected title over the suit properties by adverse possession? ( 5 ) IN so far as the first issue is concerned, since the plaintiff claimed to have succeeded to the estate of Dukhu, being his daughter and this having been disputed by the defendant, she in order to prove that she is the descendant of Dukhu examined two witnesses, besides herself. P. W. 2, an old man aged 85 stated that the plaintiff was born to Dukhu and as a co-villager he attended her 'ekoisia' function. (It is a customary function which is observed on the twenty-first day of birth of a child ). The said function according to him, was performed by Dukhu. The next witness is P. W. 3. He is a casteman of the parties and also related to plaintiff's father. Supporting the case of the plaintiff, he stated that she is the daughter of dukhu and being a relation he attended the 'ekoisia' function. ( 6 ) ON a reading of the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3, I find that they are natural and truthful witnesses and have expressed about their opinion regarding plaintiff's relation with dukhu having direct knowledge either as a neighbour or as a relation. Of course there are some discrepancies in their statements, but the same being trivial in nature and having no relevance with the fact in issue did not weigh in the mind of the court for appreciating their evidence. It may be noted that they are rustic persons and have no idea of placing the incident by arithmatical precision. Of course there are some discrepancies in their statements, but the same being trivial in nature and having no relevance with the fact in issue did not weigh in the mind of the court for appreciating their evidence. It may be noted that they are rustic persons and have no idea of placing the incident by arithmatical precision. Some mistakes with regard to date and time of happening of certain incidents which were remotely connected with the fact in issue were high-lighted but the learned trial Court having properly scanned the entire evidence accepted the sub stratum of their version that the plaintiff is the natural born daughter of Dukhu through his wife Laxmi. Nothing substantial is placed to take a contrary view and upset the findings of the trial Court. Besides what has been stated above, pleadings of the defendant and the evidence led in support thereof may be scrutinised to find whether the stand taken by the defendant challenging the plaintiff's parentage can be believed or not. It may be reiterated, in the written statement he has taken the specific stand that the plaintiff is related to Laxmi through her father's side and she being orphan was brought up and maintained by Laxmi. He, however, did not specifically state as to who plaintiff's natural father and mother were and what occasioned Laxmi to bring her. Moreover, the defendant while being examined in court developed altogether a different story that while Laxmi was ill she brought the plaintiff from village Kathomal to attend upon her. This evidence of his quite absurd-and unreasonable, the reason being that as deposed to by him, the plaintiff was aged four years when she was brought by Laxmi. If at all Laxmi needed help, she would have brought a grown up person, not a child of four years, to be by her side during her ailment. On a scrutiny of the evidence as discussed above, 1 concur with the ultimate finding of the trial court that the plaintiff is the daughter of Dukhu through his wife laxmi. ( 7 ) PLAINTIFF's case in her pleading is that dukhu and Ananta during their life time became separate and were, possessing the suit properties separately according to their shares, without effecting partition In order to prove her case she examined two elderly persons of the village, namely P. Ws. 2 and 3. ( 7 ) PLAINTIFF's case in her pleading is that dukhu and Ananta during their life time became separate and were, possessing the suit properties separately according to their shares, without effecting partition In order to prove her case she examined two elderly persons of the village, namely P. Ws. 2 and 3. The defendant, though refuted the plaintiff's case of separation in the written statement but while being examined in court he did not state anything in that regard. Assuming, as pleaded by the defendant, that both the brothers, namely, ananta and Dukhu died while living in joint mess and property, then the question arises whether on Dukhu's death his share would develop upon his wife Laxmi. To answer this question it is necessary to find when Dukhu died, inasmuch as if Dukhu's death occurred while living in joint with his brother Ananta prior to Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 came into force, then in that case upon his death, his share in the joint family property would devolve, upon his brother Ananta and not his wife Laxmi who according to law, was a maintenance holder. It may be noted, pleadings of the parties is silent as to when dukhu died. In absence thereof, search may be made from the available, oral evidence to come to a definite findings. It is in the evidence of P. Ws 2 and 3 that Dukhu died about 20 years back is in 1963. Challenging their such evidence it was suggested by the defendant that Dukhu died about 40 years back i. e. in 1943. Taking the defendant's case to be true, since Dukhu's death occurred after Hindu women's Right to Property Act, 1937 came into force, his interest in the suit property devolved upon his wife Laxmi. Of course, according to Law, laxmi's interest in her husband's property was her 'limited interest'. Admittedly laxmi died after coming into force of the Hindu succession Act, 1956. Therefore, her limited interest riped into absolute interest and upon her death, her interest in the suit property devolved upon her daughter, the plaintiff. Of course, according to Law, laxmi's interest in her husband's property was her 'limited interest'. Admittedly laxmi died after coming into force of the Hindu succession Act, 1956. Therefore, her limited interest riped into absolute interest and upon her death, her interest in the suit property devolved upon her daughter, the plaintiff. ( 8 ) THE defendant who is admittedly in possession of the suit property asserted in the written statement that in view of the fact that he has been possessing the entire property for more than 12 years to the exclusion of the plaintiff's mother Laxmi, the suit was barred by limitation. On the basis of such assertion the trial court framed an issue whether the defendant has perfected title by adverse possession. It may be noted, all the ingredients of acquisition of title by adverse possession were not pleaded by the defendant. Besides while being examined, he did not lead evidence in support of his claim that he perfected title by prescription. Therefore, on scrutiny of the pleadings as well as evidence, the learned trial court was justified in answering the aforesaid issue against the defendant. ( 9 ) IN view of discussions made above, there being no merit in this appeal, is dismissed with costs all the throughout. Appeal dismissed.