Order Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The appeal is against the order of first appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2002 delivered on 31/07/2002 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 22-A/99 passed on 14/01/2000 was reversed. This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- "Whether finding of the lower appellate Court relating to limitation and adverse possession is perverse?" 2. The appeal is against the order of first appellate court in Civil Appeal No. 17-A/2002 delivered on 31/07/2002 whereby the judgment and decree of the trial court in Civil Suit No. 22-A/99 passed on 14/01/2000 was reversed. 3. The appeal is preferred by the legal heirs of Nashima Bibi. Brief facts of the case are that the suit was filed by Nashima Bibi, w/o. Ibrahim Khan against his brothers Abdul Rahman and Abdul Majid. This is not in dispute that suit for partition and separate possession was filed by Nashima Bibi against his brothers in respect of property belonging to one Sheikh Iltaf Hussain who died in the year 1948. Suit was filed by Nashima Bibi on 21/06/99 wherein she claimed partition of the property shown in the schedule-A of the plaint. It was stated that the mother of the Nashima Bibi and defendants Abdul Rahman and Abdul Majid namely Julekha Bee died before the suit was filed. So after her death, property has devolved according to the muslim inheritance to the sister (the plaintiff) and the brothers (the defendants). It was further stated the property though was inherited taking advantage of the illiteracy of the plaintiff, property was stealthily recorded in the name by the brothers exclusively in their name which came to knowledge subsequently. It was further case of plaintiff that name of brother even if was recorded it can not amount to disclaiming of property by sisters therefore on the said ground partition was claimed. 4. In reply to the plaint allegation the defendant No. 1 accepted plaint averments and admitted the share of the plaintiff/sister. Suit was contested by defendant No. 2 Abdul Majid one of the brother. It was stated that after death of father, plaintiff was under bounden duty to get her name mutated in the revenue records and since she did not get it recorded it would amount to relinquishment of her rights. Suit was contested by defendant No. 2 Abdul Majid one of the brother. It was stated that after death of father, plaintiff was under bounden duty to get her name mutated in the revenue records and since she did not get it recorded it would amount to relinquishment of her rights. It was further stated that property was mutually partitioned in between brothers which was not objected by the plaintiff/sister which also goes to show a deemed consent was existing. It was further stated that on 30/08/89 the relinquishment deed was executed by sister which goes to show that she has relinquished her right to the property in question. Defendant further stated that the part of the property was also purchased by the plaintiff sister from the brothers by registered sale deed after payment of consideration which goes to show that plaintiff accepted the fact that mutual partition had been affected and after acceptance and separation of the share the part of the property was purchased by plaintiff on 28/11/87. 5. Learned trial court after evaluating the evidence has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Trial court has further held that the defendant has failed to prove the fact that plaintiff has relinquished her right by deed of registered deed, therefore the share of the plaintiff cannot be denied. Further the contention of the defendant that they have acquired the right by way of adverse possession was also negated. Such decree when challenged in the appeal was set aside by the court of Second Additional District Judge, Ambikapur. The appellate court has held that cause of action has started from the date of purchase by the plaintiff part of the land i.e. 28/11/87. Reckoning date of cause of action to be 28/11/87, therefore after addition of 12 years for the purpose of it was held that suit limitation has expired on 27/11/98. So since the suit was filed on 21/06/99, therefore suit was held to be barred by time. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the learned appellate court had misdirected to itself to calculate law of limitation. It is contended that logic applied by the learned appellate court that cause of action arose on 28/11/87 would not apply in the case since right was demanded by the sister. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the learned appellate court had misdirected to itself to calculate law of limitation. It is contended that logic applied by the learned appellate court that cause of action arose on 28/11/87 would not apply in the case since right was demanded by the sister. It was further stated that according to Mahomedan law of Hanafi School the sisters gets a share in the property by inheritance. Therefore even if property is recorded in the sole and exclusive name of the others, the concept of adverse possession will not be applicable. He further submits that even the plea of the question of adverse possession cannot be set into motion against joint sharer. He further contended that even reasoning of the appellate court is accepted it would reveal that appellate court has misdirected itself to calculate cause of action arose on 27/11/98. It was contended that even taking limitation of 12 years and cause of action is held to be 28/11/87, limitation would have expired on 28/11/99. Here suit was filed on 21/06/99 therefore in any case even if analogy of Appellate Court even if is accepted suit will be within limitation. It is further submitted that entire finding is perverse and therefore finding arrived at by the learned appellate court is perverse, therefore be set aside. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 6 and 8 stated that the appellant/sister had purchased the property from the brothers which would go to show that suit property was partitioned in between the brothers and sisters. Therefore, it can be presumed that plaintiff being the sister had relinquished her right over the property and therefore again purchased the property from brother. He further stated that conduct of the plaintiff would go to show that she had relinquished her part of the share and therefore order of the appellate court is well merited and consequently the finding of fact may not be disturbed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents. 9. Perusal of the case file would reflect that the suit by Nashima Bibi was presented before the trial court on 21/06/99 which is evident from the endorsement at the back side of the plaint. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents. 9. Perusal of the case file would reflect that the suit by Nashima Bibi was presented before the trial court on 21/06/99 which is evident from the endorsement at the back side of the plaint. In the said suit Abdul Rahman and Abdul Majid were made defendant who are brother of plaintiff. One of the brother Abdul Rahman defendant No. 1 accepted the averments of the plaint and it was stated that defendant being brother have never objected to grant share to the sister. It was also stated by the brother that he has no objection to grant of share for addition of her name in the revenue records as a sharer. 10. The suit was contested by defendant No. 2 Abdul Majid. The defendant No. 2 stated that plaintiff being sister after death of her father did not take any step to get her name mutated in the revenue record. Thereafter, two brothers defendants No. 1 and 2 got the share partitioned in between them and the name were mutated which was not objected by the plaintiff. So it was contended that it will go to show that plaintiff was consenting party to such partition. It was stated that on 30/08/89 the relinquishment deed was executed by sister/plaintiff wherein she had relinquished her share in respect of the property in question. It was also stated that the plaintiff has purchased 5 decimal land from the defendant which goes to show that plaintiff has relinquished her share in the property and partition was affected. It was further stated that another part of the land was purchased by the plaintiff from defendant and therefore fact is established that partition was affected. 11. Ex. P-1 shows that land was acquired under grant of Sarguja State settlement by Shri Sheikh Iltaf Hussain father of the plaintiff and defendants. The relations between the parties are not in dispute. The document of purported relinquishment made by sister is marked as Ex. D-1. The said document is unregistered and both the courts have not taken cognizance of this document being not registered. 12. Perusal of the document would go to show that document being not registered is not admissible in evidence as the property shown in the said relinquishment deed Ex. D-1 was valued more than Rs. 100/-. Ex. D-1. The said document is unregistered and both the courts have not taken cognizance of this document being not registered. 12. Perusal of the document would go to show that document being not registered is not admissible in evidence as the property shown in the said relinquishment deed Ex. D-1 was valued more than Rs. 100/-. Ex. D-2 is the document which purports that a purchase was made by the plaintiff sister from Abdul Rahman and Abdul Majid the brothers and sale deed is dated 28/11/87 in respect of part of property. The evidence of the defendant No. 2 goes to show that defendant Abdul Majid had stated that both brothers have partitioned their land in between themselves. Therefore in view of fact, if the relinquishment deed is ignored then certainly share of the plaintiff, being sister cannot be shelved. Defendant No. 2 the brother further in his cross examination has stated that plaintiff had not asked for any share from him and therefore the share was not given and further the statement was made they would have solved the issue in between themselves. Such admission too suggest the fact that impliedly defendant No. 2 Abdul Majid has accepted the part of share of the plaintiff/sister. Even otherwise the relation in between parties having been accepted and it has also been proved that the suit property belonged to Sheikh Iltaf Hussain father of plaintiff and defendant the share of the sister plaintiff cannot be denied. 13. The appellate court at para 13 has held that suit is barred by limitation as it was filed beyond 12 years of prescribed period of limitation. Such finding appears to be perverse on the face of it. If the reasoning given by appellate court are considered that since the plaintiff has purchased some property from their brother it will be presumed that there had been a partition is beyond all logic and facts on record. The appellate court has reckoned the cause of action on 28/11/87 also without any statutory support or logic. The fact that plaintiff being a sister has a implicit share and specific share according to Mahomedan law cannot be disputed which has also been accepted by the parties. Therefore the finding that cause of action arose on 28/11/87 and further taking a period of 12 years of the suit, the finding cannot be sustained. The fact that plaintiff being a sister has a implicit share and specific share according to Mahomedan law cannot be disputed which has also been accepted by the parties. Therefore the finding that cause of action arose on 28/11/87 and further taking a period of 12 years of the suit, the finding cannot be sustained. Even if contention of the appellate court is accepted, the appellate court miscalculated date while reckoning cause of action on 28/11/87, as 12 years from the date of 28/11/87 would come to 28/11/99. The suit was filed on 21/06/99. Therefore, according to the finding of the appellate court too the said logic also goes in support of the appellant/plaintiff and suit held to be within period of limitation. Under these circumstances, question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and it is held that finding of the lower appellate court related to limitation and adverse possession is perverse as there was no ouster caused by the brothers to the sister. 14. The parties to the suit are Sunni Muslims as such governed by Hanafi School of Law and Succession. The plaintiff being daughter having two brothers, according to the law of succession, brother being residuary son takes double the share than daughter. Therefore so far for the purpose of division of property, law as postulates son takes double the daughter and in this case there being two sons and a daughter, division of property according to the succession of Hanafi Law each son will take double the daughter. Accordingly, the daughter will get 1/5th while each son will get 2/5th each. Accordingly, the plaintiffs right to her share left by the father is 1/5th and two sons will get 4/5th. Accordingly, the decree is modified to the extent that the plaintiff will get 1/5th in the suit property and two sons will get 4/5th each. In view of the above discussion, second appeal is allowed. No order as to cost.