Mukharji, J.

1. This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit filed by him for a declaration of title and confirmation of possession, in the alternative for recovery of possession with respect to ther land of Khata No. 80 of village Chiridiri, Police Station Chatra in the district of Hazaribagh described in Schedules A and B of the plaint.

2. Facts giving rise to this appeal as will appear from the plaint are as follows:-

-

One Chowa Matito died leaving five sons, namely, Ganesh, Uttim, Bishwanath, Jodhan and Ram Sahay. These brothers died one after another in a state of joint-ness with the plaintiff-appellant, who is son of Ganesh Mahto. Ram Sahay, who was uncle of the plaintiff, was a widower and he had kept Most. Jogni, defendant No. 3, as a concubine in his house. Ram Sahay also died in a state of jointness with the plaintiff sometime in Bhado of Sambat 2019, equivalent to 1962 as a result of which the plaintiff-appellant became the sole owner of the joint family property. Most. Jogni, after the death of Ram Sahay, had illicit connection with one Budhan Koeri. She is alleged to have executed a collusive sale deed dated 24-4-1963 in favour of defendant No. 1, Mohammad Elahi Bux and defendant No. 2, Mahfuzal Rahman, a minor son of defendant No. 1 (respondents 1 and 2 of this appeal) without any consideration with respect to the property mentioned in Schedules A and B of the plaint. Since a cloud has been cast upon the title of the plaintiff-appellant, he has thought fit to file the suit in question for the aforesaid reliefs.

3. The suit was contested by defendant-respondent No. 1, Mohammad Elahi Bux and he contended, inter alia, in his written statement that all the sons of Chowa Mahto died in a state of separation from one another because a partition had taken place amongst these sons by metes and bounds 25 years before the filing of the suit It was further urged that Most. Jogni from whom defendant No. 1 is alleged to have acquired the interest in the property in dispute was the lawfully married wife of Ram Sahay, who was also separate from the plaintiff-appellant. Further contention of the defendant-respondent was that he is a bona fide purchaser for value and that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to any relief.

4. The learned Munsif of Chatra, who disposed of the suit held;

(i) Most. Jogni who was impleadcd in the suit as defendant No. 3 was lawfully married wife of Ram Sahay,

(ii) Ram Sahay died in a state of separation from the plaintiff-appellant,

(iii) Most. Jogni remarried Budhan Koeri before 15-4-1963,

(iv) After her remarriage, Most. Jogni was divested of her interest in the property of her previous husband, Ram Sahay by virtue of Sec.2 of the Hindu Widows Re-marriage Act, 1856, which has not been repealed by the passing of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and, as such, the property of Ram Sahay would go to the plaintiff-appellant, who is a next heir of Ram Sahay,

(v) Defendant-respondent No. 1 was not in possession over the property in dispute and that the plaintiff is in possession over the same.

On these findings, the learned Munsif decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-appellant with costs.

5 An appeal was preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif of Chatra. The appeal was heard by the 1st Additional District Judge of Hazaribagh. The learned Additional District Judge confirmed the finding of the learned Munsif on the point about Most. Jogni being legally married wife of Ram Sahay, about Ram Sahay dying in a state of separation from the plaintiff-appellant and about Most. Jogni remarrying Budhan Koeri after the death of Ram Sahay. The first appellate court, however, held that Sec.2 of the Hindu Widows Re-marriage Act should be deemed to have been repealed by Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act. It further held that Most. Jogni came in possession of her husbands property as a full and absolute owner in view of the provision of the Hindu Succession Act