Srinagar, Oct 27: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has restored a trial court decree recognising a woman as the daughter of a deceased landowner and upholding her claim to a share in his property in Kishtwar.

Justice Shahzad Azeem, while allowing Civil Second Appeal No. 30/2013, set aside the District Judge Kishtwar’s judgment dated November 7, 2012, and restored the Sub Judge Kishtwar’s decree of March 9, 2004, in favour of Mst. Themu.
Themu had sought recognition as the daughter of Sonu, son of Deep Ram Thakur, and claimed a half share in 58 kanals and 11 marlas of land in Machail village, Padder. She had also challenged a 1966 mutation that recorded the property exclusively in favour of Shib Devi.
The trial court had ruled in her favour, but the District Judge reversed the decision, holding that she had failed to establish her paternity and that her suits were time-barred.
The High Court found that the appellate court had misappreciated oral and documentary evidence and failed to properly consider Themu’s minority when determining limitation. Her father had died when she was around six or seven years old, making her a minor when the disputed mutation was attested.
Referring to Section 6 of the Limitation Act, the court observed that the law provides protection to minors in computing limitation. It also noted that the defendants had produced no evidence establishing when her rights were unequivocally denied, despite the burden on them to prove the limitation objection.
The court further held that witness testimonies and revenue records collectively supported Themu’s claim of being Sonu’s daughter. It said the absence of testimony from her mother or another close blood relative could not, by itself, invalidate her claim when other credible evidence was available.
Finding errors in the appellate court’s assessment of paternity, limitation and the burden of proof, the High Court answered both substantial questions of law in Themu’s favour.
It accordingly restored the trial court’s decree in the two clubbed suits. The appeal was allowed, with both parties directed to bear their own costs.