The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following customary rites and ceremonies for a valid marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act and the statutory recognition of marriage under Hindu law as a sacrament.

JUDGMENT

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21-12-1992 and 6-1-1993 passed by the learned subordinate Judge, Chatrapur in Title Suit no. 76 of 199o dismissing the suit.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is the appellant. She filed the suit for partition of the suit property along with mesne profits and costs. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are her daughters. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff No. 3 died. Therefore, her name was deleted.

( 3 ) THE case of plaintiff No. 1 in a nutshell is that she married to one Debendra Polai in the year 1973 as per Hindu customs and adjusted herself in the Hindu customs of the family. Debendra died on 17-5-1987. The suit schedule lands are joint family properties of debendra and his brother. After death of debendra, She became helpless and demanded partition of her husband's share but all her attempts became fruitless. During settlement operation, all the properties were recorded in the name of defendant No. 2 giving an impression that Debendra died unmarried and issueless. It was further claimed that defendant No. 2 and Debendra had joint lease of salt cultivation wherefrom defendant No. 2 was getting an average income. The plaintiffs, being the members of the joint family, are entitled to a share from the properties in question. Accordingly, finding no other way, they filed the aforesaid suit. Defendant No. 1 is the mother, defendant No. 2 is the brother and defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are sisters of debendra. All the defendants filed a common written statement contending, inter alia, that the plaintiffs are neither Hindus nor the married wife and daughter of Debendra. Debendra was in love with a Christian lady. He converted his religion to Christianity and demanded his share from the joint family property of his father Govinda Polai. Therefore, there was a family settlement and Rs. 1 lakh in cash and 50 tolas of gold ornaments were given to Debendra towards his share in the joint family property and he severed all his connections from their family and properties. Defendants claimed that they had no knowledge about the alleged marriage of plaintiff No. 1 with Debendra. The alleged marriage certificate was false and baseless. Debendra had kept a concubine at Ganja and died issueless in the year 1987. The alleged lease of salt cultivation was purely the personal belonging of defendant No. 2 and temporary in nature. Hence, the same is not liable for partition. On the aforesaid assertions, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

( 4 ) ON the above pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as four issues. Since issue nos. 2 and 3 are important, those two issues are quoted below :

"2. If the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Devendra Polai and the defendants and whether there was previous petition hold, between Debendra and the defendants ?

3. If the plaintiff No. 1 is a Hindu widow and plaintiff No. 2 is the daughter of debendra and if they can maintain this suit for partition and entitled to a share from the suit schedule properties ?"

( 5 ) BOTH the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their plea. The trial Court considering the evidence on record came to the finding that the entire suit property is the ancestral joint family property of both Debendra and defendants except Ac. 6. 20 cent. of lands which are stridhan property of defendant No. 1 Savitri. All other properties have been recorded in the name of the defendants due to death of debendra. The land under Ext. D, registered sale deed No. 4152/90, exclusively belongs to defendant No. 2 and there was no previous partition between the parties.

( 6 ) SO far as issue No. 3 is concerned, the trial Court recorded the findings that plaintiff No. 1 was not a Hindu married wife of debendra. After the death of Debendra, she became non-Hindu widow. Therefore, she was not coming within the definition of "widow" to succeed the properties of the deceased Debendra under the Hindu Succession A