Hon’ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J.—Heard Shri Kamlesh Kumar Gangwar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Dinesh Mishra holding brief of Shri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The plaintiff had filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The plaint allegation was that she is owner in possession of the disputed land having half share in the Bhumidhari plot Nos. 269 area 0.32, 313 area 0.20, 385 area 0.18, 354 area 1.10, 415 area 0.50, 437 area 0.43, 540 area 0.15, 696 area 0.10, 711 area 0.17, 712 (M) area 0.11, 763 (M) area 0.02, 809 area 1.14, 810 area 1.10, 817 area 0.66 and 857 area 2.60 acres of village Medpur, Pargana Kampil, District Farrukhabad and plots No. 13 area 0.032, 48 area 0.174, 105 area 0.069, 211 area 0.085, 267 area 1.125 and 120 area 0.032 hectares of village Alipur, Pargana Shamshabad, West, district Farrukhabad. The plaintiff alleged that suit property initially belongs to Jai Ram who had two sons Deep Chandra and Chandra Prakash. After the death of Jai Ram, the suit property devolved upon widow Smt. Sumitra Devi and two male lineal descendant, namely, Deep Chandra and Chandra Prakash (sons of Jai Ram). The plaintiff is widow of Chandra Prakash. At the time of filing of the suit, Jai Ram Sumitra Devi and Chandra Prakash had died. The plaintiff claimed half share in the property being widow of Chandra Prakash and on the basis of said claim she prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Deep Chandra from interfering in her possession and use of disputed land.

3. The defendant resisted the suit on the basis of registered Will deed dated 9.1.1979 alleged to have been executed by his mother Sumitra Devi of her share in the immovable and moveable property. He further pleaded that plaintiff Smt. Shakuntla wife of Chandra Prakash remarried and living with her brother-in-law, namely, Dev Pal as his wife. As a result of which the defendant is owner in possession of entire suit property.

4. On the basis of pleadings, trial Court framed several issues and issue No. 1 relates to question as to whether the plaintiff is owner in possession of the disputed property and issue No. 3 was as to whether any Will has been executed by Smt. Sumitra Devi in favour of the defendant for the disputed property. Issue No. 5 related to the question as to whether the plaintiff had remarried. Documentary and oral evidences were filed by the plaintiff to contradict the execution of Will and defendant filed documentary and oral evidences to establish that plaintiff had remarried and she lost her right in the disputed property. According to the provision of Section 171 (1) (iv) of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1950’). The trial Court after considering the evidence on record dismissed the suit.

5. On the issue No. 5 finding recorded by the trial Court is that though marriage of the plaintiff has not been performed as per Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, however the society in which the plaintiff lives gave recognition to custom ‘Dharauna’ and plaintiff has performed ‘Dharauna’ with her brother-in-law, therefore, that would amount to marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. On the issue No. 3 finding is that Will was executed by Smt. Sumitra Devi, mother of the defendant of her share in movable and immovable property and half share in the property cannot be devolved upon the plaintiff under Section 171 (2) (a) of the Act and moreover plaintiff had remarried and, therefore, she lost her right in the suit property as per Section 171 (1)(iv) of the Act. On the issue No. 1 finding is recorded that though the name of the plaintiff appears in the revenue record, namely, Khasara and Khatuni copies of which were produced. However,with regard to mutation of the disputed property the dispute is pending between the parties, therefore, same has not become final and as plaintiff had failed to give boundary of the disputed property s