ORDER 1.Heard the parties. 2. The present appeal by special leave has been filed by the plaintiff against the judgment rendered by the Jammu and Kashmir High. Court whereby dismissal of the plaintiffs suit as affirmed by the first appellate court has been confirmed. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming one-half share in 12 canals of land which has been fully described in the plaint and her case was that one Rarnzan had three daughters Azizi (plaintiff), Mst Mehree (Defendant I) and Mst Mukhti @ Mugli. Ramzan died leaving behind his three daughters referred to above who inherited the suit property in equal shares. It was stated that thereafter Mst Mukhti died in 1981 and her 1/3 share which she inherited from her father devolved upon the plaintiff and Defendantin equal shares. In this manner the plaintiff claimed half share in the suit property. It was her further case that Defendant 2, who was the son of Mst Mehree falsely claimed to be the adopted son of Mst Mukhti, and a Will alleged to have been executed by Mukhti in his favour was not genuine and valid. 4. Both the defendants filed written statement jointly contesting claim of d the plaintiff. With regard to one-third share of the plaintiff in the suit property, it was stated that Mehree and Mukhti both remained in joint possession of the entire property to the exclusion of the plaintiff, upon the death of Ramzan, as such the suit for partition was barred by limitation as the defendants acquired title by adverse possession. According to them the adoption was valid and the Will was genuine.Before the trial court, issues were framed and both the parties led evidence in support of their respective cases. The court decided issues of adoption and Will against the defendants and dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation accepting the case of adverse possession set up by the defendants, without going into the question as to whether the plaintiff was entitled to any share in the property upon the death of Mukhti. When the matter was taken in appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were upheld. When the matter was taken in appeal, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were upheld. Thereafter a second appeal was unsuccessfully preferred by the plaintiff before the High Court wherein with regard to claim of the plaintiff on account of death of Mukhti, the High Court has taken the view that no such relief could be granted in favour of the plaintiff, as granting the same would amount to granting equitable relief in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 6. Shri M.L. Bhat, leamed Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant firstly tried to persuade us on the question that the finding on adverse possession recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court as well as by the High Court was vitiated. In our view, it is not possible to interfere with the said finding as the same was a pure finding of factrecorded by the trial court and rightly upheld by the first appellate court as well as the High Court. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that in any view of the matter, suit could have been dismissed only with regard to her claim for partition as an heir of Ramzan but her suit for partition should have been decreed in relation to the property devolved upon her after the a death of Mukhti as her one of the two heirs, namely, the plaintiff and Defendant 1. Even according to the case of the defendants and the finding, Mehree and Mukhti were in joint possession of the suit property and had equal shares therein. Upon the death of Mukhti, her half share in the suit property devolved upon Mehree as well as the plaintiff in equal shares. Thus the plaintiff was entitled to one-fourth share in the suit property and her suitfor partition with regard to the 1/4 share in the property should have been decreed. 7, For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part, the impugned judgments and decrees are modified and the plaintiffs suit for partition is decreed to the extent of 1/4 share which shall be carved out by appointment of a Pleader Commissioner and preparation of final decree. In the circumstances, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs.