The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the date of remarriage in determining the entitlement to inherit the estate of the deceased under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act.

V.M. Jain, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Smt. Bachni Devi, plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by her was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge.

2. Smt. Bachni Devi, plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit property was owned and possessed by her, being granddaughter of Thainu and that defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had no right, title or interest therein and the revenue entries showing her as legal heir of Thainu, being widow of Barkat were illegal and void and were not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, inasmuch as defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto was not the legal heir of Thainu. It was further alleged that the gift deed dated 9.2.1989 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of a part of the suit land was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. By way of consequential relief, grant of a decree of permanent injunction was also prayed restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and in the alternative, prayer was made for grant of a decree for possession in respect of the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was owned and possessed by Thainu and that Barkat, father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had pre-deceased his father Thainu in 1957, whereupon defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had remarried Hukma @ Sant Ram in 1959 during the life time of Thainu and that on account of remarriage, she had severed all her connection with the family of Thainu. It was alleged that Thainu had died on 14.7.1960 leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir, being his grand-daughter and she being minor at that time, defendant No. 1 had illegally got mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her favour alongwith the plaintiff in respect of the estate of Thainu, even though, defendant No. 1 had no right to inherit the estate of Thainu, deceased. It was alleged that the entries in the revenue records in favour of defendant No. 1 were illegal and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and for this reason, the gift deed dated 9.2.1989 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was also illegal and void.

3. In the written statement filed by the defendants various preliminary objections were taken. On merits, it was alleged that after the death of Thainu, his entire estate including the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff and defendant No.

1. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 had remarried Hukma after the death of Thainu i.e. after succeeding to the estate of Thainu to the extent of 1/2 share, while the remaining 1/2 share was succeeded by the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the present suit after such a long time even after attaining the age of majority. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 was well within her rights to gift away the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2.

4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had remarried Hukma during the life time of Thainu and that in the revenue record Smt. Jeeto, defendant was recorded as widow of Barkat. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff could not be held to be the sole surviving legal heir of Thainu and as such, the revenue entries in favour of defendant No. 1 were perfectly legal and valid and as such, the gift deed dated 9.2.1989 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was also legal and valid. It was further held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge upholding the findings of