This second appeal arises out of concurrent findings and judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court confirmed decree rendered in favour of deceased respondent - plaintiff declaring him as owner of the suit property and for injunction simpliciter.

2. The following genealogy table is admitted and would clarify relationship between the parties.

3. There is no dispute about the fact that the suit properties were allotted to deceased Ganpati during family partition. which was effected by deceased plaintiff Sambhaji somewhere in 1963-64. Thereafter, Ganpati and Rambhau were residing separately. Ganpati was separately enjoying the suit properties till his death. He died on 13-8-1976. He had married but his first wife by name Rakhmabai died issueless much before he got separated due to the partition.

4. Deceased respondent (plaintiff) filed suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction restraining the defendant appellant from causing obstruction in his lawful possession in respect of the suit properties. His case before the trial Court was that Ganpati had developed illicit relationship with the defendant (appellant) and that she had started to reside with him. She was previously married to one Tukaram s/o. Vithoba Bidbag. She has begotten 3/4 sons but their paternity could not be ascertained. They are not the sons of Ganpati. She submitted an application dated 14-9-1973 alleging that Ganpati was her husband and she has begotten four sons out of the wedlock. She sought mutation of her name in respect of the suit properties. Consequently, the deceased respondent (plaintiff) filed suit for declaration of ownership and injunction on the basis of his being successor to the suit properties after death of Ganpati.

5. The defendant (appellant) resisted the suit mainly on the ground that she is legally wedded wife of deceased Ganpati and their marriage was performed in or about 1963-64. She denied that Ganpati had developed illicit relations with her. She contended that she used to reside with Ganpati as his legally wedded wife until his death and has begotten four sons out of the wedlock. She denied that she was earlier married to Tukaram s/o. Vithoba Bidbag. She contended that after death of Ganpati, she came into possession of the suit properties as the successor along with her sons. She asserted that the deceased plaintiff had never been in possession of the suit properties till the date of the suit and yet a false claim was set up by him. Hence, she sought dismissal of the suit.

6. The parties went to trial over certain issues framed below Exh.41. The main issue was as to whether the deceased plaintiff had proved allegation regarding illicit relations between the defendant and deceased Ganpati and whether she was his mistress. Another issue was whether she proved her status as legally wedded wife of deceased Ganpati. The trial Court held that she was mistress of deceased Ganpati and could not claim herself as his legally wedded wife. The suit was, therefore, decreed. The first appellate Court confirmed such findings.

7. The first appellate Court, however, reached finding that the defendant (appellant) was not proved to be wife of one Tukaram s/o. Vithoba Bidbag and was not previously married to him. Both the Courts held that evidence regarding marriage between the appellant and deceased Ganpati was discrepant and that there was no reliable proof regarding performance of necessary ceremonies like “Homa” and “Saptapadi.”

8. Mr. Solshe, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant (appellant) would submit that proof regarding performance of “Saptapadi” was not essential to establish valid marriage. He would' submit that the first appellate Court committed patent error while holding that the marriage between Ganpati and the defendant was not performed. He pointed out that the trial Court reached conclusion that the marriage was performed but ceremonies required for a valid marriage we