IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in reversing the concurrent findings of Courts below and rightly held that plaintiff was legally wedded wife of deceased Chaudhari Suraj Prasad and after death of her husband became landlady of the defendants. The Courts below committed serious error on facts as well as in law which was rightly set aside in second appeal by the High Court.

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-These appeals are by the defendants. The facts, in brief, leading to filing them are the following.

2. Sheela Devi filed five suits - OS Nos. 55 of 1965, 56 of 1965, 57 of 1965, 58 of 1965 and 59 of 1965 - against the defendants for ejectment and possession of the suit properties from tenants or licensees or trespassers as the case may be. Plaintiff claimed to be the widow of late Chaudhari Suraj Prasad. She had married him according to Arya Samaj rites on 8.7.1951. Chaudhari Suraj Prasad died on 11.1.1953. After his death she filed application for mutation in respect of agricultural property, the land and zamindari inside the district of Orai; mutation was made in her name; the zamindari compensation was also paid to her. Kalavati as sister and Gopal Das as collateral of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad claimed the suit properties.

3. All the five suits were dismissed by the trial Court and the first appeals filed by the plaintiff against the common judgment and decrees of the trial Court were dismissed. The second appeals, filed by her, were allowed by the impugned common judgment of the High Court. The said second appeals were contested only by the heirs of Gopal Das, who had expired. Kalavati or the other tenants and occupants of the properties did not contest them having not put any appearance.

4. In all the suits one of the defences that Sheela Devi was not legally wedded wife of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad was common. Gopal Das and Kalavati were impleaded in the suits as they were claiming to be heirs of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad. Some of the tenants pleaded that they were tenants of Gopal Das and Kalavati and not of the plaintiff Sheela Devi.

5. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court held that plaintiff was not legally wedded wife of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad and as such was not entitled to any rights in his properties. Consequently the suits as well as the first appeals filed by the plaintiff were dismissed. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has noticed that the approach of the courts below in deciding the issues that came up before them was patently erroneous inasmuch as the findings were recorded on conjectures and surmises, drawing wrong inferences even from the facts proved, ignoring the material evidence brought on record and failing to consider the material evidence. The High Court also observed that the findings recorded as to the status of the plaintiff as legally wedded wife of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad in previous proceedings were not taken into consideration. In short, according to the High Court the findings recorded by the courts below were untenable. It is observed by the High Court that "After looking to the entire record I have no hesitation in holding that the observations of the courts below about the plaintiff were not merely unkind but they were highly defamatory and uncalled for. I would not like to repeat all the adjectives and adverbs used by the courts below for the plaintiff but I cannot refrain from remarking that such defamatory and unparliamentary language must not be used in judgments especially when there was absolutely no basis for such remarks".

6. The material questions that need to be addressed and decided are (1) whether the plaintiff was legally wedded wife of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad, and (2) whether the tenants or persons in occupation were tanants of Gopal Das or Kalavati having regard to the contentions raised by the parties. The result of these appeals depends on the finding whether plaintiff Sheela Devi was the legally wedded wife of Chaudhari Suraj Prasad or not.

7. The learned counsel for the appellants-defendants contended that the High Court was not at all right and justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below based on evidence. He argued supported the judgments of the courts below as against the impugned judgment. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, while reiterating the submissions mad