Under the customary law prevailing in Manipur, a Loukhatpa ceremony is necessary to validate a marriage. Without such a ceremony, the status of a widow who lives permanently with a man as his wife is that of a concubine or "Byabicharini".

This is a second appeal filed in forma pauperis by the appellant in first Civil Appeal No. 33/62/19 of 1963 on the file of the Additional District Judge Manipur, against his Judgement and decree dated 7-1-1964 dismissing the appeal filed by her against the judgement and decree dated 13-3-1962 of the Munsiff of the valley at Imphal in Civil Suit No 64/1960 decreeing the suit against her.

2. The first respondent (R.K. Chandani Singh-plaintiff-P.W. 5) filed Civil Suit Case 64 of 1960 on 9-5-1960 for declaration of his title to and possession of the plaint schedule land, which is the southern 1/3 of an Ingkhol covered by Patta No. 90/144 I.W.T. (8-2/3 lessas in extent) and for mesne profits, alleging that the 2nd respondent (Polem Nandeswar Singh, second defendant in the suit) acquired it from his father late Polem Chaoba Singh, in or about 1950, that he was ever since in possession and enjoyment of it, that he sold it to the first respondent under Ext. A/1 (registered sale deed dated 27-5-1959), for Rs. 400, that the appellant (D.W. 3 the first defendant) was permitted to live in the house constructed by the 2nd respondent, that she refused to vacate the land and that, therefore, the first respondent (P.W. 5) is entitled to declaration of his title to the suit land and recovery of possession of the same.

The appellant (1st defendant) pleaded that she herself purchased the suit land for Rs. 400 with her own money in the name of her husband late P. Chaoba Singh in 1946, that she had been in possession and enjoyment of the land, that she is the widow of late P. Chaoba Singh and that the 2nd respondent was not entitled to alienate the land, even assuming that Chaoba Singh was its owner. She denied the alleged permissive possession of the land, as set up by the first respondent (P.W. 5).

3. The Munsiff framed 10 issues and held that Late P. Chaoba Singh himself purchased the suit land, that he gave it to his son the 2nd respondent, that the appellant (D.W. 3) was in permissive possession of the suit land, that the first respondent (P.W. 5) acquired title to the suit land by purchasing it under Ext. A/1 and that, therefore, he is entitled to the reliefs prayed for. He decreed the suit with costs.

4. The appellant carried the matter in 1st Appeal case 33/62/19 of 1963 on the file of the Additional District, Judge, Manipur. He concurred with the findings of the Munsiff that the land was purchased by late P. Chaoba Singh, that he gave it to his son the 2nd respondent, that the latter was in possession and enjoyment of it and that, therefore, the first respondent (P.W. 5), who purchased the suit land from the 2nd respondent, was entitled to the declaration of his title to the suit land and to recover possession of it. He thus negatived the plea of the appellant (the first respondent) that she herself purchased the suit land with her own money in the name of late P. Chaoba Singh.

He further held that, though the Munsiff did not frame any issue whether the appellant the 1st defendant is the widow of late P. Chaoba Singh or not both the parties were quite aware of the plea of the appellant that she is the widow and that of the 1st respondent that she is not the widow of late Chaoba Singh, that the evidence on the record is sufficient for 9 decision on the point and that therefore, there was no need to frame and additional issue under O. 41, R. 25, C.P.C. He resettled the issues under O. 41, R. 24, C.P.C. and held on the evidence that the appellant was not legally married to late P. Chaoba Singh. In view of the findings arrived at by him, he dismissed the appeal with costs.

5. Being aggrieved with the judgement and decree of the Additional District Judge, the first defendant filed the present 2nd appeal in forma pauperis.

6. In this 2nd appeal the learned counsel for the appellant challenged all the findings of the Courts below. The respondents 2 and 3 (Polem Nandeswar Singh and Polem Ibohal Singh P.W. 4) (defendants 2 and 4) are the son