The validity of a Hindu marriage requires strict proof of the essential ceremonies, including the Saptapadi, and the presumption of valid marriage based on cohabitation and social acceptance cannot be applied when there is specific evidence about the ceremonies and their absence.

( 1 ) THIS is a defendants second appeal in a suit for injunction and possession in respect of certain land. According to the plaintiff Krishna Nand Lal, his family was a Hindu joint family and his brother Kalindri Lal was not married and died issueless and another brother Chhotkun Lal was blind. The family owned some houses, some of which had fallen down. Two houses remained. Kalindri Lal used to live in the house in suit. The 8th defendant Smt. Jagrani was a Bharin by caste and the daughter of Bhuleshwar who was a resident of a nearby village. She left her Sasural and went back to her fathers village and used to do menial work in different houses at the village where the plaintiff resided and in this manner she came to serve in the plaintiffs house. Kalindri lal died in the year 1964 and now fire-wood and Bhusa used to be stored in the house in which he was living. The plaintiff and the 9th defendant Gyan Swarup, who is the plaintiffs cousin being his fathers brothers son used it occasionally for sitting, but mostly it was under lock. The houses of defendants Nos. 1 to 7 and of defendant No. 8 Smt. Jagrani were near each other. After kalindri Lals death, they took Smt. Jagrani in their service and having brought her under their influence, secretly got executed a sale deed dated 3rd May, 1967 by her in their favour in respect of the house in suit. The sale deed is wholly fictitious and without consideration. She had no right to execute the sale deed. The plaintiffs did not know of this transaction for some time but when they heard a rumour about it, they made enquiries and obtained a copy of the sale deed and since defendants Nos. 1 to 7 were not prepared to have it cancelled, it became necessary to file the suit.

( 2 ) APART from denying the plaintiffs case that Kalindri Lal was a member of the plaintiffs Hindu joint family and that the house was joint family property as per written statement filed by defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5, the main plank of the defence was that Kalindri Lal had married defendant No. 8 some 35 years ago, the written statement being dated 26th October, 1968, in accordance with Arya Samaj rites and they had both lived as husband and wife since then. It was also pleaded that some 20 years ago they gave birth to a daughter which was lost at the age of about 7 or 8 years. The exclusive possession of Kalindri Lal and after him of defendant No. 8 was also pleaded and it was said that the sale deed was for consideration, lawful and valid, and that the defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were put into possession thereof.

( 3 ) THE first issue framed by the trial court was whether Smt. Jagrani is the widow of Kalindri lal, and since that is the only issue which now survives for consideration, I need not refer to the other issues raised at the trial. The finding of the trial court was that Smt. Jagrani is the widow of kalindri Lal and in view of that finding and its findings on other issues the trial court dismissed the suit. But on appeal the lower appellate court reversed the same and decreed the suit.

( 4 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length in this case but I find that this appeal must fail.

( 5 ) IT was the specific case of the defendant that Kalindri Lal married Smt. Jagrani according to arya Samaj rites. Arya Samaj rites follow the strict Vedic rites of marriage but the defendants probably used the expression Arya Samaj rites as an euphemism for a non-conformist or an irregular marriage, for there was a time when even the validity of an arya Marriage was doubted on account of the willingness of Arya Samajists to solemnise marriage between persons of different castes, or with converts to Hinduism or widows, and the Arya Marriage Validation act, 1940 had to be passed to declare them to be valid and to have always been valid. Smt. Jagrani stated as D. W. 1 :

"kalindri ke chacha ne shadi karaya tha Koi Pandit shadi nahi karaya tha. Unke chacha ne havan karaya tha aur Kalind