- This second appeal has been filed by some of the defendants against the judgment and decree of the District Judge Faridkot, dated 19th May, 1975. 2. The following pedigree table will be helpful in appreciating the facts of the case :- 3. Briefly, the facts are that Dewa Singh whose property is in dispute now, died on 13th January, 1956. After his death, his land was mutated in the names of defendant Nos. 1, 2, 8-A and 8-B and Jangir Singh, predecessor-in-interest of defendant Nos. 3 to 10 on 20th August, 1956. The land mentioned at serial No. (a) in the heading of the plaint was in possession of the tenants and the land at serial No. (b) of the heading was under mortgage. It is alleged that the plaintiffs were the sisters of Dewa Singh and the defendants wrongly got the mutation attested in their names and took possession of the property in collusion with the tenants who are defendant Nos. 11 to 17. Consequently, they filed a suit for possession on the ground of inheritance. 4. The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 10 who inter alia pleaded that the plaintiffs were not the sisters of Dewa Singh and that they are the preferential heirs being his collaterals. They further pleaded that the suit was not within limitation and that they had become owner by adverse possession. 5. The learned trial Court held that the plaintiffs were sisters of Dewa Singh deceased, that the suit was not barred by limitation and that defendant Nos. 1 to 10 had not become owners by adverse possession. Consequently, it decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 6. On appeal, the District Judge, Faridkot, upheld the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. Defendant Nos. 1 to 9 have now come up in second appeal to this Court. 7. The only question that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the suit of the plaintiffs was not within limitation, that the defendants had become owners of the property by adverse possession and that the findings of the courts below to the contrary are erroneous. It is contended by him that the mutation of the land was attested in favour of appellant Nos. 1 2, 8-A and 8-B and Jangir Singh on 20th August, 1956 and from that date they are in its possession. The suit for possession should have been brought within twelve years, after the date of death of Dewa Singh. He further urges that the defendants were in hostile possession of the property since the date of death of Dewa Singh. According to him, in that situation the suit was not within limitation and the appellants had also become owners by adverse possession. 8. Mr. Sarin, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, urges that some of the property is under mortgage and the appellants cannot be said to have acquired title of equity of redemption by adverse possession. He further submits that regarding the other property, the same was in possession of the tenants and, therefore, the plaintiffs' suit is within limitation. 9. I have heard the learned counsel at a considerable length. It is evident from the plaint that some of the property is in possession of the tenants whereas the other property is in possession of the mortgagees. First, I shall deal with the property which is in possession of the tenant. The defendants have produced mutation, Ex. D-1, by which the property was mutated in the names of appellant Nos. 1, 2 8-A and Jangir Singh predecessor-in-interest of the other appellants. It was attested on 20th August, 1956. The tenants admittedly attorned in favour of the appellants. Therefore, they will be deemed to be in possession of the property from the date of death of Dewa Singh in any case from the date when the mutation was attested in their favour. It is well settled that the suit for possession on the ground of inheritance should be filed within a period of twelve years from the date when the inheritance opens. Reference in this regard may be made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sada Nand Saraswati v. Shiv Nath and others, 1964 PLR 1074 wherein it was observed that as soon as a person dies, his property vests in the next heir whether that heir is at law or is nominated by the last holder. It is immaterial whether the heir actually takes possession of the property or not. He is the lawful owner of the property he will only be able to perfect his title to it by adverse possession. The period of limitation will run against the heirs who is entitled to the property on the death of the last holder. I am in respectful agreement with the above observations. Similar observations were made in Mst. Ralli v. Mst. Gurnam Kaur and others, AIR 1954 Punjab 14 (DB) and Mt. Pitra Kueri v. Ujagar Rai and others, AIR 1958 Allahabad 101 (DB). The appellants were also claiming adversely to the plaintiffs. 10. Mr. Sarin made a reference to Mst. Bhango v. Deep Chand etc., 1963 Current Law Journal 481 and the Punjab Wakf Board, Ambala v. The Panchayat Deh and another, 1971 PLR 224. Both the cases are, however, distinguishable. They are not cases of inheritance. In my view, the ratio in the said cases is not applicable to the facts of the present cse. 11. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the suit of the plaintiffs regarding the land which was in possession of the tenants is not within limitation and the appellants have been in hostile possession of the property since the date of death of Dewa Singh. Consequently, they have become owners by adverse possession. 12. Now, I advert to the mortgaged property some of which has been redeemed whereas the rest has not been redeemed. Admittedly, the period of twelve years had not expired at the time of institution of the suit after the redemption the contention on Mr. Majithia is that the appellants acquired title to equity of redemption by adverse possession. The proposition has, however, been settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Ganda Singh and others v. Ram Narain Singh, AIR 1959 Punjab 147, wherein it has been observed that the title to equity of redemption cannot be acquired by adverse possession when the land is in actual possession of the mortgagee. As already stated above, some of the Property is still under mortgage whereas the redemption of the other property was made within twelve years of the institution of the suit. Therefore, in my view, the appellants have not become owners by adverse possession of the property under mortgage. The suit qua that property is also within limitation. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, I partly accept the appeal and dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs regarding the property mentioned at serial No. (b) in the head-note of the plaint and maintain the decree of the first appellate Court regarding the rest of the property. In view of the partial success of the appeal, I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal partially allowed.