IMPORTANT POINT
Right to widow--Any judgment and decree, cannot take away right of widow to claim absolute ownership right under section 14 (1) of Act.
Marriage--Long cohabitation--It is well settled law, that long association of parties as husband and wife which is accepted by public at large leads to presumption of marriage.

VINOD K.SHARMA, J.

1. The plaintiff/appellants filed a suit for possession of the land, on the pleadings that they were agnates of Saria the adopted son of Jattu and, therefore, were entitled to inherit the land being preferential heirs. The pedigree table given in the suit reads as under: -

Kauda jattu he adopted Saria Ganda Dasaundhi Suba S/o Suba as his son died issueless ganda died issueless Chhajju mela Mansa died issueless Ram Lubhaya plaintiff Janak dulari plaintiff Raj Rani plaintiff No.3 No.1 No.2 ramji Lalji died Saria died issueless Ganda died issueless Babu died issueless amar Chand died it was the case set up by the plaintiff/appellants, was that the suit land was allotted during consolidation of holdings of village Malhewal, in lieu of the land which had devolved upon Saria, adopted son of Jattu son of Kauda.

2. Smt. Shankari, who was firstly married in village Gondpur, police Station and Tehsil Garshankar, started living in house of Ganda son of suba son of Kauda as his keep. After the death of Saria, said Shankari with the help of Ganda and Lalji, his brothers and Amar Chand his nephew, and in conspiracy with the revenue staff, got mutation of inheritance of the estate of said Saria sanctioned in her name.

3. Mansa and Mela sons of Chhajju brought a suit for possession of the land left by Saria against Smt. Shankari in the Court of learned Sub Judge, ist Class, Hoshiarpur. The compromise was entered into in the said suit, wherein it was agreed, that Smt. Shankari was to remain in possession of the property left by Saria adopted son of Jattu till her lifetime. It was the case of the plaintiffs, that Smt. Shankari died on 23.12.1973 in village Malhewal, and after her death, plaintiffs being agnates of saria, adopted son of Jattu, were entitled to the possession of the suit land, being preferential heirs.

4. It was the case of the plaintiffs, that the stand of the defendants, that Smt. Shankari was widow of Saria, was wrong and against the facts, as she was never a legally wedded wife of Saria.

5. Smt. Shankari being already married could not legally wed again even if she had become a widow. Saria was high caste Brahman, therefore, second marriage of Smt. Shankari with Saria was not valid. It was claimed, that Smt. Shankari had no right to inherit the estate of Saria. The plaintiffs also challenged the will executed by Smt. Shankari in favour of Jagat Ram, father of defendants No.1 to 6. It was also the case of the plaintiffs that even otherwise, as Smt. Shankari was only to remain in possession of the suit land during her lifetime, under the terms of the compromise decree, she had no right to will away the suit property. It was further the case of the plaintiff/appellants, that her right to remain in possession stood terminated with her death and the plaintiffs were entitled to take possession of the suit land being owners as agnates of Saria. Possession of defendants No.1 to 6 over the suit land was said to be that of trespassers. The suit was filed as the claim of the plaintiffs was not accepted by defendants No.1 to 6.

6. On notice, defendants No.1, 2, 5 and 6 appeared and filed joint written statement, whereas other defendants were proceeded against ex parte. The contesting defendants controverted the allegations made in the plaint, and raised preliminary objections, with regard to locus standi, limitation, and that the suit was not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction. The defence was also taken, that the suit property was not properly described. That the plaintiffs were estopped from filing the suit by their act and conduct and their admission, and that the suit was not maintainable in the present form.

7. Defendants No.1 to 6 also claimed to have become owners of the suit land by way of adverse possession, being in open, hostile and notorious possession. It was also pleaded, that Smt. Shankari was the married wife of saria son of Suba and was not living as a keep. It was th