The judgment establishes that under the Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856, a widow, upon remarriage, is divested of her deceased husband's property inherited by her.

A.K. Shrivastava, J.

1. These two appeals were preferred by plaintiff Mst. Shyam who died during the pendency of the second appeals and present appellants, who are her legal representatives, have been brought on record. Undisputedly the deceased plaintiff/appellant Mst. Shyam Bai was widow of Chhota Chhamar and after the death of Chhota she re-married with present appellant No. 1 Punna Chamar s/o Nandu Chamar and other appellants are her son and daughter born from her second husband Punna Chamar.

2. Deceased plaintiff Shyambai filed civil suit for declaration and injunction in respect to certain agricultural land which is the subject matter of the suit. According to plaint averments, plaintiffs late husband Chhota Chamar was Bhumiswami of the suit property and it was his self acquired property. According to her, the suit land was allotted by the Government to her husband Chhota 40 years prior to the date of filing of the suit (suit was filed on 23-12-1983). Chhota had died 20 years prior to filing of suit i.e. in the year 1963 and since she is the class-I heir of deceased Chhota Chamar, Bhumiswami rights are devolved in her. The plaintiff in alternative also pleaded, acquiring of Bhumiswami right by adverse possession. According to her, defendant No. 2 namely Kanchhedi is not the brother of Chhota nor he is the son of Mangaliya Chamar and he without any authority, after the death of her husband Chhota Chamar, got his name mutated along with her in revenue record, which came into the knowledge of plaintiff in the month of November, 1983. It has also been pleaded that the defendant No. 2 Kanchhedi never possessed the land in question and at present also he is not possessing the same.

3. The plaintiff further pleaded that defendant No. 1 Baldua in collusion with defendant No. 2 Kanchhedi started saying that survey No. 962, 963 and 964 which are the part of suit land is of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 Kanchhedi also started saying that he is the Bhumiswami of rest other survey numbers of suit land. Defendants No. 1 and 2 are giving threat to dispossess her. They also filed application before the Tehsildar and the decision rendered by Tehsildar dated 2-11-1983 is contrary to law and is not binding on her.

4. On the basis of these premised pleadings, it has been prayed that by decreeing the suit it be declared that plaintiff is Bhumiswami of land in question having possession over it and defendants be restrained from interfering in her possession.

5. The defendants filed joint written statement and denied that the suit property was self acquired property of Chhota. This fact has also been denied that the suit land was allotted to him by the Government. According to defendants, the suit property was ancestral property of Mangaliya whose sons are defendant No. 2, Chhota and Baba. After the death of Mangaliya, the suit property was mutated first in the name of Baba then Chhota as "Karta Khandan".

6. Before the death of Chhota Chamar who was the husband of plaintiff, he (Chhota Chamar) fell ill and suffered the disease of T.B. and his medical treatment expenses were borne by Baldua and in lieu of the expenses which he (Baldua) incurred, Gumania, who was the mother or Chhota, with the consent of Chhota delivered possession of survey No. 962, 963 and 964 to defendant No. 1 Baldua and since then he is possessing those lands.

7. The defendant admitted that Chhota died 20 years prior to filing of the suit. It has been further pleaded that after the death of Chhota, defendant No. 2 Kanchhedi being his heir became Bhumiswami of land in question. This fact has been denied by the defendants that plaintiff had perfected her title by adverse possession. The defendants further pleaded that after the death of Chhota, plaintiff got re-married with one Punna Chamar and had divested her right. On the basis of these pleadings it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

8. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of