( 1. ) THIS second appeal is directed against the reversing judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jabalpur in a claim for partition by the appellant of the property left by one Sheikh Munna. The Civil Judge (Class II), jabalpur upheld the claim of the appellant and decreed the suit for partition.

( 2. ) THE question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant was married to Sheikh Munna and thus became entitled to a share in the property. The respondents 2 and 3 support the claim of the appellant and their stand is common with the appellant as they also claim to be the daughter and son of sheikh Munna from his second wife, the appellant in this appeal. The case of the appellant was that Sheikh Munna was already married to Jaitunbi, respondent No. 1, but since he did not have any child from her he married the appellant on 25-12-1949 at Bhopal. After marriage, the appellant stayed with Sheikh munna at his house at Andherdeo for about 4 or 5 months but as she could not pull on well with the first wife, she shifted to a house at Bhartipur and continued to stay there. Sheikh Munna was visiting her there and it is in this house that respondents 2 and 3 were born to her from Sheikh Munna. During Sheikh munnas life time, he on all occasions acknowledged and made declarations that respondents 2 and 3 were his daughter and son. Sheikh Munna died on 23-4-1966 and left behind properties mentioned in Schedule attached to the plaint. The respondent No. 1, it was stated, wrongfully took possession of all the property, cash and moveables and deprived the appellant and respondents 2 and 3 of their lawful share. Hence this suit.

( 3. ) THE respondent No. 1 Mst. Jaitunbi denied that the appellant was ever married to Sheikh Munna and that respondents 2 and 3 are daughter and son respectively of Sheikh Munna. She alleged that the appellant was married to one Nazar Mohammad and was living with her sons and daughter at Bhartipur at the time of Sheikh Munnas death She also pleaded that in 1962, the appellant fought the State Assembly election from Jabalpur constituency and the voters list indicated that she was the wife of Nazir Mohammad. In the nomination form she had described herself as the wife of Nazir Mohammad and, therefore, it was a circumstance clearly going against her claim to be the wife of sheikh Munna. She also stated that at the time of Sheikh Munnas death she alone had performed the necessary rites. The respondent No. 1, therefore, entirely denied the marriage of the appellant with Sheikh Munna and accordingly the appellant was not entitled to a share in the property of Sheikh Munna.

( 4. ) THE trial Court found that the parties were Sunni Muslims and that sheikh Munna had married the appellant and out of this wedlock, the respondents 2 and 3 were born to them. The trial Court also found that Sheikh Munna acknowledged the defendants 2 and 3 as his legitimate daughter and son during his lifetime. He, therefore, allowed the claim of partition declaring the share of respondents 2 and 3 as 7 /8th in the property and that of the appellant as 1 /16th. The learned District Judge, however, took quite a contrary view. He was of the opinion that the marriage of Sheikh Munna with appellant did not take place and had not been established by the evidence on record. Not only that it had not been established but that it was disproved by the evidence on record that Sheikh Munna married the appellant. He also disbelieved the evidence as regards the acknowledgment which carried conviction to the trial Court.

( 5. ) THE entire case as already indicated depends on the sole question whether the appellant was married to Sheikh Munna. The evidence had been led to establish marriage with Sheikh Munna and to show circumstances that the appellant had been living as wife of Sheikh Munna, and lastly of declarations said to have been made by Sheikh Munna during his lifetime acknowledging respondents 2 and 3 as his daughter and son thus giving rise