IMPORTANT POINT
Evidence of general reputation for purpose of proof or disproof of a marriage is admissible.

JUDGMENT

Faizan Uddin, J.-This appeal by the plaintiffs has been directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court whereby the plaintiff s suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share was decreed.

2. The appellant Shantinath Ramu Danole and his mother Housabai (since deceased) filed the suit against the defendant-respondent for separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit property by partition. The plaintiff No.1 Shantinath Ramu Danole claimed to be the son of deceased Ramubabu Danole and plaintiff No.2 (mother of plaintiff No. 1) deceased Housabai claimed to be his widow. The defendant-respondent is the son of deceased Ramubabu from his first wife Rajubai. The plaintiffs pleaded that the suit properties were ancestral properties of deceased Ramubabu Danole who died on December 20, 1973, his first wife having died earlier when the defendant-respondent was aged about one year only. After the death of his first wife Rajubai, deceased Ramubabu Danole married Smt. Housabai, the mother of the appellant about 35 to 40 years ago from the date of filing the Suit. It was alleged that when Housabai was pregnant she was turned out of his house by Ramubabu Danole and she was forced to live with her parents at Upalai. The plaintiffs claimed that they had 2/3rd share in the ancestral property left behind by the deceased Ramubabu Danole. It was alleged that since the defendant-respondent No. 1 claimed to be the exclusive heir of deceased Ramubabu and denied any share to the plaintiffs in the suit property they filed the suit for possession of their 2/3rd share in the same by partition. The plaintiffs also alleged that during the pendency of the suit the respondent had sold the land bearing Gat No. 461 to the defendant/respondent No. 2 on 7.1.1977 which is not binding on them. It was also alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant No.1 also created some encumbrance of defendant/respondent No.3 on the property for which the respondent No. 1 alone was liable. The defendant No. 1 resisted the suit filed by the plaintiffs by pleading that the plaintiff-appellant No. 1 was not the son of deceased Ramubabu nor the plaintiff No. 2 Housabai (since deceased) was the wife of deceased Ramubabu as he had never married Housabai. The defendant No.1 claimed to be the only son of deceased Ramubabu to be the exclusive owner of the suit property. The defendant No. 1 admitted that he had sold Gat No. 461 to defendant No. 2 for the purpose of repaying the debts of his father and that the deceased Ramubabu had also taken loan from the Bank - defendant No. 3 for construction of a Well which had to be repaid. He also took the plea that out of the consideration received from the defendant No. 2 he had repaid the debts of his father. The defendant No. 2 in his separate written statement took the plea that the defendant No. 1 is the exclusive owner of the suit property and that he was purchaser from him for value without any knowledge about the pendency of this suit. The defendant No. 3 in its written statement took the plea that the deceased Ramubabu had taken loan of Rs. 5000/- from the Loan Development Bank after mortgaging his said Gat Nos. 655 and 659 as security for repayment of the loan.

3. On evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on record the Trial Court recorded the finding that the plaintiffs have proved the factum of marriage of deceased Housabai, plaintiff No. 2 with deceased Ramubabu Danole and the plaintiff-appellant No. 1 was born out of the said wedlock. The Trial Court also recorded the finding that it was not established that the defendant No. 2 was a bonafide purchaser of the said Gat No. 461 and that the said sale was not binding on the plaintiffs. It was also held that since the lands bearing Gat Nos. 655 and 659 were mortgaged by the deceased Ramubabu Danole himself to the d