( 1 ) THIS is a defendants appeal from a decree passed by a Civil Judge in a suit for possession over zamindari property. The property was admittedly owned by one Faqir Chand, a Jaiswal Kalwar of village Gaura, whose relationship with parties would be clear from the following genealogical table : jaleba defendant (2nd wife)= _ Ram Das | (D. 1929)| = | Thakuri __ _ 1. Ram Lakha | (first wife) | (D. 1936)Faquir chand -| (dead) | = |_ Bhirgun | Parmashra (D. 1927) | Plaintiff | |_ 2. Murtagungara |_ 3. Surta

( 2 ) ON the death of Faqir Chand, the property in dispute devolved upon his sons and on the death of one of them Ram Das and Ram Lakhan became the owners. When Ram Das died, Ram lakhan became the sole survivor of the joint family. It is not contended that Jaleba inherited any right from Ram Das and was entitled to anything more the n maintenance. Ram Lakhan married parmeshra, daughter of Umrao of village Seori which is about twenty miles from village Gaura, in 1936. Within twenty days of the marriage Ram Lakhan died leaving Parmeshra, a young widow of thirteen years of age. Disputes arose between Parmeshra and Jaleba about mutation in respect of the property in dispute standing in Ram Lakhans name, but they were compromised in the mutation Court. Parmeshra, being a minor, was represented by Umrao as her guardian-ad litem and it was he who arrived at a compromise with Jaleba. Though it is stated in the written statement that the compromise was with permission of the mutation Court, the fact seems to be that no permission was obtained. At least none has been produced in the case and the mere fact that Jaleba applied for a copy of an application for permission does not prove that such an application existed. The compromise was that Jaleba should have her name entered in the khewat against one-fourth share in each village, and that Parmeshra should get her name entered against the remaining three-fourth share. Mutation was accordingly ordered in the Khewats. Trouble broke out between the two women again in 1942, Jaleba alleging that Parmeshra had remarried Kishore and forfeited her right to the property of Ram Lakhan. Proceedings under section 145, Criminal P. C. , were started and ended in an order of the criminal Court declaring jaleba to be, and entitled to remain, until evicted in due course of law, in possession of the property in dispute. Hence the present suit was instituted by Parmeshra to recover possession over the entire property. She denied having remarried Kishore and pleaded, in the alternative, that, even if she had, she had not forfeited her right to Ram Lakhans estate because widow remarriage was recognised in the community of Kalwars. She made a counter-allegation against jaleba to the effect that she herself had remarried Debi Prasad, originally of village Imiliya in azamgarh district and now residing in Gaura itself or Barhaj which is adjacent to it. This Debi prasad is admittedly the husband of Jalebas sister Gulaichi who is admittedly alive and has children through him, Parmeshra attacked the compromise arrived at in 1936 in the mutation case on the grounds that it was procured by undue influence and without permission of the mutation Court, that Jaleba had no right of any kind to the property secured to her under the compromise, that the document containing the compromise was not registered, that the compromise is greatly prejudicial to her interests, and that there was no dispute between the parties in the mutation Court regarding Ram Lakhans estate and consequently no occasion for its coming into existence. The suit was contested by Jaleba. She denied her alleged remarriage with debi Prasad and asserted Parmeshras remarriage with Kishore of village Dhillai, which is about two miles from village Seori. She pleaded that among the Kalwars there was no custom of sagai form of widow remarriage, and that if any widow did remarry or was kept as a concubine by a man she lost the estate inherited from he