JUDGMENT J.S. Narang, J. - The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for joint possession of the land as detailed in the head note of the plaint and also for recovery of mesne profits from the defendants upon the basis of the pleadings set out in the plaint. The brief facts are that one Mst. Ram Kaur widow of Mahna Singh became the owner to the extent of 608/974 share in the land measuring 68 Kanals and 13 Marlas and 606/973 in the land measuring 81 Kanals 18 Marlas, as her husband Mahna Singh had died. She also died on 11.3.1975 and the said share was inherited by the plaintiff-appellant and that the mutation No. 9675 dated 30.3.1976 was sanctioned accordingly. 2. The defendant-respondents have not accepted the ownership of the plaintiff-appellant as heir of Mst. Ram Kaur and resultantly, did not deliver possession of the suit land to the extent of the share inherited by her. Since the defendants were in possession, they continued to cultivate the share of the plaintiff-appellant and that no share had ever been given to her accordingly, as such, the mesne profits have been claimed at the rate of Rs. 750/-. Since the right had not been recognised she brought the present suit against the defendant-respondent for the appropriate relief. 3. The defendants have contested the suit and have raised various preliminary objections. An averment has been made that infact they have become the owners of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession as they continued to be in possession for more than 12 years. Further, Mahna Singh deceased belonged to the Jat Sikh families and therefore, was governed by the customary law of Punjab in the matter of succession and that the share in the property in dispute is ancestral qua him and the defendants. It has also been averred that limited rights in respect of the said property were succeeded to by the plaintiff-appellant till her marriage but after the marriage having been performed in the year 1948, she is not entitled to the possession of the land as owner because the land stood reverted to the defendants as reversioner being the collaterals of Mahna Singh and that they are in possession of the land since then. It has also been pleaded that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. It has also been pleaded that the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1134 and 1229 had been mortgaged with Ram Singh and Chhaju Singh and that the limitation for redemption has since expired. It has also been pleaded that the land measuring 27 Bighas and 18 Biswas had been earlier mortgaged by Mahna Singh with one Hazara Singh and that the mortgagee rights had been sold by him to the defendant-respondents. 4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the issues had been framed and subsequently, additional issues had also been framed by the trial Court vide order dated 14.2.1978. The parties led respective documentary and ocular evidence in support of their pleas/pleadings and also to prove the issues, the onus of which had been lasted upon them. The trial Court returned a finding against the plaintiff-appellant to the effect that she is not the owner of the land in dispute and is therefore, not entitled to decree for joint possession. However, the finding on issue No. 6 has been returned in favour of the defendants to the effect that they have become owners of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession for more than 12 years. It has also been held that the right of redemption in respect of the land mortgaged with Ram Singh and Chhaju Singh had been lost on account of limitation and that finding has been returned in favour of the defendants. As a sequel thereto and in view of the finding returned upon issue No. 6 it has been held that the land comprised in Khasra No. 1134 and 1229 is in possession of defendants as owners. Similarly, the land comprised in Khasra Nos. 1127, 1128, 1132, 2909 and 3405 had been mortgaged by Mahna Singh with Hazara Singh since 9.10.1980 Bk. and that the defendants after having come into possession of the said land have become the owners accordingly. Similar is the finding returned in respect of the land comprised in Khasra No. 1133. It has also been held that the suit is bad for misjoinder of causes of action and misjoinder of parties. The issue No. 5 pertaining to the question of limitation has been found against the plaintiff-appellant. The trial Court has further returned finding upon issue No. 7 and has held that the parties are Jats and are therefore, governed by the customs in the matter of succession. The issue No. 5 pertaining to the question of limitation has been found against the plaintiff-appellant. The trial Court has further returned finding upon issue No. 7 and has held that the parties are Jats and are therefore, governed by the customs in the matter of succession. Thus, after the death of Mahna Singh, his wife Mst. Ram Kaur had re-married with some stranger, therefore, under the customary law, the remarriage resulted in forfeiture of her life interest and that the land reverted to the next reversioner who became entitled to succeed to the property of the last male holder i.e. Mahna Singh. So far as, issue in respect of the property being ancestral is concerned, upon concession of the counsel for the plaintiff, it has been held that the property is ancestral. Consequently, issue No. 1-A stood decided in favour of the defendant-respondents. It has also been held that the property was succeeded by the plaintiff after the death of Mahna Singh only till her marriage and that the finding in respect of issue in respect of the marriage of the plaintiff-respondent has also been held in favour of the defendant by holding that the plaintiff got married in the year 1948. Resultantly, in view of the findings returned by the trial Court upon various issues in favour of the defendants against the plaintiff, the suit has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 18.1.1979. 5. The plaintiff-appellant being dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, filed an appeal before the lower Appellate Court. The findings of the trial Court have been affirmed and the appeal has been dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 29.2.1980. The plaintiff-appellant still not satisfied filed by present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset has argued that the courts below have non-suited the plaintiff-appellant without the plea of kareva having been performed by Mst. Ram Kaur and that the inheritance of the plaintiff has been shown through Mahna Singh, which is absolutely incorrect. There is no plea which has been set out in the written statement in this regard nor any issue has been framed accordingly nor any categoric evidence has been led by the defendant-respondents in respect thereof. It has nowhere been pleaded as the when Mst. Ram Kaur re-married after the death of Mahna Singh. There is no plea which has been set out in the written statement in this regard nor any issue has been framed accordingly nor any categoric evidence has been led by the defendant-respondents in respect thereof. It has nowhere been pleaded as the when Mst. Ram Kaur re-married after the death of Mahna Singh. Thus, in the absence of the evidence on the record, the trial Courts fell into error in holding that the share in the land, as claimed in the suit, came to be succeeded by plaintiff-appellant through Mahna Singh and that as per the custom she was entitled to retain the life interest till the date of her marriage and that she got married in the year 1948 and as a result thereof, the share in the land reverted to the reversioners i.e., defendant- respondents. The plea set up is that Mst. Ram Kaur had never re-married, therefore, she succeeded to the property of Mahna Singh and that she died in the year 1975 and it is thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant succeeded to the property. It has also been pointed out that the mutation was sanctioned and Mst. Ram Kaur was shown as the owner as is evident in the jamabandi for the year 1970-71 exhibited as Ex. P-21 and so also jamabandi for the year 1975-76 exhibited as Ex. PX. It is after her death, the mutation No. 9675 dated 30.3.1976 was sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-appellant, which has not been questioned by any one till date. It has also been pointed out that the entries in the revenue records, reflecting the ownership of Mst. Ram Kaur, had also not been questioned by any one, therefore, she had been reflected as full owner of the share in the property. 7. The plea of remarriage of Mst. Ram Kaur had never been taken nor such question was ever raised nor any has been determined by the trial court as is evident from the perusal of the issues struck upon the pleadings of the parties. Thus, the trial courts have fallen into error in holding that by virtue of the customary law, upon remarriage, Mst. Ram Kaur had lost her right in the property. Infact, the plea has been taken that plaintiff-appellant is not the daughter of Ram Kaur but the factum of ownership of Mst. Thus, the trial courts have fallen into error in holding that by virtue of the customary law, upon remarriage, Mst. Ram Kaur had lost her right in the property. Infact, the plea has been taken that plaintiff-appellant is not the daughter of Ram Kaur but the factum of ownership of Mst. Ram Kaur which has been duly reflected in the revenue record had never ever been questioned. Learned counsel has made pointed reference to para Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the plaint. It has been specifically averred in para No. 2 that Mst. Ram Kaur, the owner has died on 11.3.1975 and that as her successor, the plaintiff-appellant has succeeded to the property by virtue of sanctioning of mutation No. 9675 dated 30.3.1976. Copy of the mutation so sanctioned has been appended with the plaint. My attention has also been drawn to the written statement vide which reply has been filed to para Nos. 1, 2 and 3 vide which while submitting reply to para No. 1, it has been pleaded that the contents of para No. 1 are denied and that the plaintiff-appellant has no right in respect of the land for seeking possession thereof and that the land has been in possession of the defendant-respondents by way of adverse possession, as such, they have become the owners thereof. Further, while submitting reply to para No. 2 it has been submitted that Mst. Ram Kaur has died and that the succession granted in respect of her property by virtue of sanctioning of mutation is against law and fact and therefore, the same is not binding upon the defendants. Further, while submitting reply to para No. 3, it has been stated that the plaintiff-appellant has no right and that the land which has been defined, after consolidation, continued to be governed by the Punjab Customary Laws, as Mahna Singh was a Jat Sikh and the said land was inherited by the plaintiff-appellant as a life interest but after her marriage in the year 1948, the said right became extinct and has reverted to the defendant-respondent as reversioners. Thus, the defendants are in possession of the land as owners and that the plaintiff-appellant was aware of all these facts. Thus, the defendants are in possession of the land as owners and that the plaintiff-appellant was aware of all these facts. Apart from this, the plea of the land having been mortgaged by Mahna Singh in favour of some other persons has also been mentioned but nowhere the plea has been taken that Mst. Ram Kaur had remarried after the death of Mahna Singh. 8. However, reference has been made to the statement of Mit Singh defendant No. 1 who has appeared as DW1 and has stated that Mst. Ram Kaur had contracted a second marriage with Kaku of Lakhmirwala after the death of Mahna Singh. After the marriage, the right in the land of Mahna Singh was succeeded by his daughter Kaki and that the same was entered in her name. It has also been stated that it is customary that the remarriage is performed after the death of the husband. It is also stated that after the marriage of Kaki, the plaintiff-appellant, the share was succeeded by his father Diwan Singh and Gajjan Singh and the same was entered in their names accordingly. In this cross-examination, he has not been able to give the answer as to which village the maternal family of the plaintiff-appellant belongs to. It has been further stated by him that at the time of death of the father of the plaintiff-appellant, she was 10 years old. He has also pleaded ignorance as to where Mst. Ram Kaur used to reside at village Khatkar. He has also not been able to tell as to whether the land measuring 68 Kanals 13 Marlas is in their possession. However, he has denied that Ram Kaur did not have her share 608/974 in the land. However, he has reiterated that Ram Kaur performed Kareva with Kaku of Lakhmirwala. It may be noticed that the matter had been considered by the revenue authorities and in one of the proceedings pending before the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, a report had been asked for from Tehsildar Barnala who, after verifying from the record of the consolidation, made a report dated 10.11.1971 that out of the Khewat of Gajjan Singh son of Bhan Singh measuring 81 kanals 18 Marlas, Mst. Ram Kaur is entitled to a share measuring 606/973 and Gajjan Singh 367/973 and that in the Khewat of Mukhtiar Singh measuring 68 Kanals 13 Marlas, Mst. Ram Kaur is entitled to a share measuring 606/973 and Gajjan Singh 367/973 and that in the Khewat of Mukhtiar Singh measuring 68 Kanals 13 Marlas, Mst. Ram Kaur is entitled to a share to the extent of 607/974. The the said report was accepted by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade and that the order dated 19.12.1972 was passed sanctioning mutation in favour of Mst. Ram Kaur widow of Mahna Singh. The said order was challenged in appeal before the Collector Sangrur, District and that the appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.5.1973, the order has been exhibited as Ex.P-6. The said order was challenged by way of revision before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala and that the order of the Collector was upheld vide order dated 31.10.1973. A reference was sought to the Financial Commissioner by way of R.O.R. No. 142 of 1973-74 against the order of the Commissioner. The said reference was also dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 8.8.1974, copy of the order has been exhibited as Ex. P-9. 9. It may further be noticed that no such plea has been taken by any one to the effect that Mst. Ram Kaur had ever performed Kareva with a person by the name of Kaku as has been alleged in the statement of Mit Singh DW1. The facts have been succinctly noticed by the learned Financial Commissioner in the aforestated order, wherein it has been recorded that Mahna Singh died in the year 1938 and that after his death the land had been mutated in favour of his daughter Smt. Kaki i.e. the plaintiff-appellant with the stipulation that she would be the owner of the property till marriage. The plaintiff-appellant got married sometimes in 1948 but the entries in the revenue record continued and that she was shown as the owner in the relevant column of the revenue record. However, learned Financial Commissioner while setting aside the previous orders of the Assistant Consolidation Officer, Barnala dated 30.9.1956 vide order dated 10.11.1961 remanded the case by virtue of which fresh entry was made by the Patwari Halqa on 26.12.1964 and submitted the same to Assistant Collector IInd Grade, who on 5.6.1965 sanctioned the mutation in favour of Smt. Kaki daughter of Mahna Singh, i.e., plaintiff-appellant. This order was challenged by way of an appeal before the Collector Barnala and the appeal was accepted and the case was again remanded to the Assistant Collector Ist Grade for a fresh decision. It is vide order dated 31.10.1969, the names of Mit Singh, Mukhtiar Singh sons of Smt. Indri widow of Diwan Singh had been ordered to be deleted so also that of Gajjan Singh. This order was again challenged by them in appeal before the District Collector, Sangrur and that the appeal was accepted vide order dated 27.10.1970 and it had been observed that the mutation be sanctioned in favour of Ram Kaur widow of Mahna Singh after identifying her land which had since undergone consolidation operations. It is thereafter, the Assistant Collector Ist Grade had obtained the report and had sanctioned mutation in favour of Ram Kaur vide order dated 19.12.1972. The defendant-respondents being dissatisfied with the order filed an appeal before the Collector, Sangrur which was rejected as noticed above, vide order dated 21.5.1973 and that the revision against the same was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala vide order dated 31.10.1973. Learned Financial Commissioner has categorically observed that after considerable litigation, the rightful heir has been correctly determined i.e. Mst. Ram Kaur widow of Mahna Singh. Thus, the revision had been dismissed by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated 8.8.1974. As a sequel thereto Smt. Ram Kaur widow of Mahna Singh has been shown as the owner to the extent of the share, as determined by the revenue authorities and that the jamabandi has been exhibited as Ex. P-12. It is after the death of Ram Kaur and upon sanctioning of the mutation, the plaintiff-appellant has been recorded as the owner by virtue of the successor rights in respect of the share of Smt. Ram Kaur. The document has been exhibited as Ex.PX i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 wherein in the column of owner to the extent of the share as noticed above, name of Smt. Ram Kaur has been recorded. It is on these basis, the suit for joint possession has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. The document has been exhibited as Ex.PX i.e. Jamabandi for the year 1975-76 wherein in the column of owner to the extent of the share as noticed above, name of Smt. Ram Kaur has been recorded. It is on these basis, the suit for joint possession has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant. It may also be noticed that the mutation noticed above had been sanctioned in favour of the plaintiff-appellant after noticing the objection of the defendant- respondents as in evident from the order dated 30.3.1976 passed by the Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Barnala vide which the mutation has been sanctioned. This order has not been shown to be contested by any one any further, copy of which had been exhibited as Ex.P-5. 10. It has been further argued that the trial Court has placed reliance upon a statement of the plaintiff-appellant recorded in Civil Suit No. 661 of 8.6.1977 filed by the plaintiff-appellant wherein she has stated in cross- examination that her father Mahna Singh died about 40 years ago and that after the death of her father, her mother contracted kareva with an other person. However, she has denied her knowledge to the effect that after marriage, the succession of the land of Mahna Singh was mutated in favour of the plaintiff. Infact she denied that the plaintiffs are in possession of the land but lateron admitted that they are in possession of the land in question. It is on the basis of this statement alone, the trial Court has given the finding that Smt. Ram Kaur could not succeed to the share of Mahna Singh in the aforestated land but after his death, the share came and vested in plaintiff- appellant but after her marriage in the year 1948, the same reverted to the defendant-respondents. This fact has been wrongly determined by the trial Court as the factum of performance of kareva by Ram Kaur has not been pleaded in the written statement by the defendant-respondents and resultantly no issue was framed in respect thereof. If this plea is not accepted on the premises that the same was not pleaded, the share in the land has to be inferred in favour of Ram Kaur as has been determined by the revenue authorities. If this plea is not accepted on the premises that the same was not pleaded, the share in the land has to be inferred in favour of Ram Kaur as has been determined by the revenue authorities. If that be so, then in pursuant to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Smt. Ram Kaur has been correctly held to have become the full owner and not a limited owner. It is thereafter upon her death, the plaintiff-appellant succeeded to her rights as the only successor, which fact has been further affirmed and described by the revenue authorities. Thus, the trial Court has fallen into error in not accepting the right of Ram Kaur on the premises that she had performed Kareva after the death of Mahna Singh, which fact has not been specifically and succinctly accepted, however, the same has been referred to in some statement which has been made by the plaintiff-appellant and so also the defendant-respondent Mit Singh who has appeared as DW1. It has been argued that such statement cannot be used as admission against the person unless an opportunity has been granted to explain it, if it is capable of being explained. In the case at hand, the statement used as admission by the plaintiff-appellant has not been subjected to the aforestated test, therefore, the same could not have been used against the plaintiff-appellant. Admittedly, this statement had been tendered into evidence in the statement of the counsel for the defendant and that no opportunity whatsoever had been granted to the plaintiff-appellant to controvert the same. In the absence of such right having been accorded to the plaintiff-appellant, this statement cannot be termed as legal evidence and used accordingly. In this regard reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Lahore High Court and various other judicial pronouncements which are noticed as under :- Ghulam Murtaza v. Nagina and others, AIR 1980 Lahore 991, Secretary of State v. Akbar Shah, AIR 1934 Lahore 753, Baldev Singh v. Nemi Chand, AIR (397) 1950 (East.) Punjab 291, and Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa, AIR 1977 Supreme Court 170. 11. It has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant that the statement of the plaintiff-appellant which has been exhibited as Ex. 11. It has been fairly stated by the learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant that the statement of the plaintiff-appellant which has been exhibited as Ex. D-21 had not been objected to when the same had been taken on record vide order dated 11.9.1978, but de hors of this, learned counsel has argued that the exhibition of such statement and placing reliance thereon suffers from the rigor of the legal dicta rendered by the courts, the objection can be raised and is permissible to be raised at the later stage as well. He has further conceded that this plea has not been taken in the grounds of appeal before this Court as well, however, he has made oral request for permission to raise this plea and in support thereof referred to the dicta of the courts. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the defendant-respondents has argued that the courts below have given a categoric finding that Smt. Ram Kaur had performed Kareva after the death of her husband Mahna Singh much before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Thus, the right came to vest in her after the death of Mahna Singh and in fact the trial Courts have recorded that the land came to be vested in plaintiff-appellant with the limited right and that she got married in the year 1948 i.e. before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and it is in that year i.e. 1948 she lost the right in favour of the reversioner, i.e., defendant-respondent. 13. However, he has not been able to address meaningful argument so far as the finding of revenue courts is concerned and so also the factum of sanctioning of mutation in favour of plaintiff-appellant on the premises that she inherited successory rights upon the death of Ram Kaur in the year 1975. Copies of the orders have been duly noticed here above. 14. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the courts below have come to erroneous conclusion while returning findings on the respective issues and thereby holding that the plaintiff-appellant never became the owner to the extent of the share in the aforestated land and have also incorrectly hold that the plaintiff is not entitled to the decree for joint possession. It has also been incorrectly held that the defendant- respondents became owners of the suit land by virtue of adverse possession for more than 12 years. Infact, there is no evidence to the effect that they enjoyed possession of the land, which is subject matter of suit, adverse to the knowledge of the real owner. Infact, they have been contesting the claim and right of Ram Kaur before the revenue authorities as is evident from the perusal of the order passed by the learned Financial Commissioner Ex. D-20 wherein the entire history vis a vis the act and the conduct of the parties has been traced out and finally it has been held that the real owner of the property has been correctly deciphered and it is thereafter, the mutation has been sanctioned and Ram Kaur has been shown as the owner to the extent of the share as claimed. In this regard, the jamabandies have been placed on record which have been exhibited as Ex.P-21 and Ex. PX. 15. The perusal of the pleadings also shows that the defendant-respondents have not taken the plea that Ram Kaur performed kareva and therefore, no right came and vested in her and that infact the same flowed from Mahna Singh to plaintiff-appellant. Since no plea has been taken, no issue was framed and therefore, no opportunity could ever became grantable to the plaintiff- appellant and so also accordingly to defendant-respondents. The statement, Ex. D-21 of the plaintiff-appellant, which has been relied upon by the trial Court, could not be made the basis in the eventuality of the plea having not been taken, in view of the principle enunciated by the Courts, as noticed in the aforestated judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. Admittedly, the said statement was never put to the plaintiff- appellant when she had stepped into witness box as her own witness. 16. Admittedly, the said statement was never put to the plaintiff- appellant when she had stepped into witness box as her own witness. 16. It is correct that no such objection has been taken by the plaintiff- appellant in this regard but keeping the totality of the circumstance in view and especially the findings returned by the revenue courts, I am tempted to grant permission to learned counsel for the appellant to raise this plea on his oral request, as the granting of permission for raising such plea would not prejudicially effect the defendant-respondent as no evidence is required to be led in this regard and more so when no plea has been taken by the defendant-respondent in respect of the alleged kareva having been performed by Smt. Ram Kaur after the death of her husband Manna Singh. Thus, I hold that the plaintiff-appellant has been able to prove her case to the fullest extent. 17. Resultantly, the finding of the trial Court on issue Nos. 1 and 2 is reversed and is returned in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and that the finding upon issue No. 6 is also reversed and returned against the defendant- respondent. However, the finding on issue No. 3 of the trial Court is affirmed as the same has been returned upon the concession of the counsel for the defendant. Similarly, the finding upon issue Nos. 4, 4-A, 5-A, 6-A and 7-A is returned against the defendants as the rights qua the alleged mortgagees are not in question in the suit filed by the plaintiff, as the only relief asked for is for joint possession and as a consequential relief thereof, entitlement to the mesne profits commensurate to the share inherited by the plaintiff-appellant also deserves to be granted. However, the finding on issue No. 7 based on the fact that Smt. Ram Kaur had remarried with some stranger is reversed, as no plea of performance of kareva by Ram Kaur had been taken by the defendant-respondents and that no issue had been struck in this regard and that the statement of the plaintiff-appellant is not permissible to be read against her without the same having been put out to her when she had stepped into the witness box as her own witness, ignoring this, even if the finding has to be returned in favour of the defendants that they were governed by the customary law of Punjab would be of no consequence. Since the plea of remarriage had never been taken before the revenue authorities nor has been taken in the present suit and that no categoric or cogent evidence had been led in this regard before the trial Court the finding is necessarily returned against the defendant. Likewise, the finding in regard to issue Nos. 1-A and 2-A as returned by the trial Court in favour of the defendants is reversed and the same is held against the defendants. It is categorically observed that the plaintiff-appellant succeeded to the rights of Ram Kaur who had succeeded to the same in her own right and in view of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 became the absolute owner in respect thereof. So far as issue No. 3-A is concerned, in view of the admissions, and uncontested evidence having come on record it is returned in favour of the defendant-respondents and it is held that the plaintiff did get married in the year 1948 but this finding is of no consequence because she succeeded to the right of Smt. Ram Kaur after her death in the year 1975. 18. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decrees of the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and that she is held entitled to joint possession to the extent of the share as claimed in the suit. 18. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decrees of the courts below are set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and that she is held entitled to joint possession to the extent of the share as claimed in the suit. It is further held that she is entitled to the mesne profits as claimed in the suit but with effect from the date of filing of the suit as no categoric cogent evidence has been brought on record as to from which date the defendant-respondents continued to be in possession of the share of Mahna Singh. Decree be drawn accordingly. Appeal allowed.