T.P. Naik, J.

This is a second appeal by the plaintiff whose suit for a declaration that her marriage with defendant-respondent Shankarlal was null and void has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court. The marriage is being sought to be set aside on the ground of fraud. The trial Court found the allegations proved and decreed her suit. The lower appellate Court however found that there was no misrepresentation amounting to fraud as alleged which could warrant the setting aside of the marriage in question.

The facts which are not in dispute may shortly be stated as follows :

The plaintiff Bimla Devi and the defendant Shankarlal went through a ceremony of marriage according to Hindu rites at Jabalpur on 28-2-1952. The plaintiff is the legitimate daughter of one Munnalal Dube, a Kanvakubja Brahmin, while the defendant Shankarlal is the illegitimate son of the defendant-respondent Kundanlal, also a Kanyakubja Brahmin, but born of an adulterous intercourse with a Kurmi woman defendant-respondent Godawaribai. The said Godawaribai had left her husband and came in the exclusive keeping of Kundanlal whose mistress she has been ever since. The defendant-respondent Shankarlal is thus an illegitimate son of the defendant-respondent Kundanlal.

The plaintiff's case as disclosed in paragraph 5 of the plaint inter alia was: "That before and at the time of celebration of your petitioner's said pretended marriage, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 defrauded your petitioner by declaring that the respondent No. 1 is Brahmin by caste and son born out of wedded Brahmin wife of respondent No. 3 and that respondent No. 2 is Brahmin by caste and wedded wife of respondent No. 3, but in fact respondent No. 1 is Shudra (Kurmi) by caste. He is born of respondent No. 2 who is Kurmi by caste from a person other than respondent No. 3 and an illegitimate to (sic) by birth and that respondent No. 2 is a keep of respondent No. 3." The defendants in their written statement generally denied the said allegations. They averred :

^^---------------- ;g ekU; ugha gS fd izfrokh la[;k 1 kwnz gSA og czk.k dk ;kus izfroknh la[;k 3 dk iq= gS ijarq izfroknh la[;k 1 dk tUe izfroknh la[;k 2 tks tkfr dk dqehZ gS& gqvk gS tks izfroknh la[;k 3 dh vkSjr gS] dqehZ dh x.kuk {kf=;ksa esa dh tkrh gS 'kwnzks esa ugha dh tkrhA**

^^okn ifjPNn la[;k 5 ekU; ugha gS vkSj ml ij ;g dguk gS fd nksuksa i{k ds izk.kh x<k QkVd vkSj va/kj nso d{k (Mohalla) tks ,d nqljs ds fudV gS&& jgrs Fks vkSj izR;sd i{k ,d nwljs i{k dks vfr mke jhfrls tkurs Fks] fookg dh ckrphr 'kknh ds nks ekg ifgys ls gks jgh Fkh vksj izfroknh la[;k 3 us onh ds firk Jh eqUukyky nqcs dk HkkbZ ftUgksaus fookg dh ckr phr dh Fkh ;g dg fn;k Fkk fd 'kadjyky izfroknh ua- 1 izfroknh ua- 3 ls iSnk gqvk gS bl ckr dh mu yksxksus ;kus oknh ds firk o HkkbZus dbZ txg iqNrkN o Nkuchu dh Fkh vkSj bl rjg le> lksp ysus ij 'kknh djuk fuf'p; fd;k FkkA**

The trial Court believed the evidence of the plaintiff's witnesses and came to the conclusion that it was satisfactorily established that the defendant-respondent Kundanlal and his brother Imratlal had falsely represented to Munnalal that they were pure Brahmins and that Shankarlal was the son of Kundanlal, that he (Shankarlal) was also a Brahmin and that he had no mistress in his keeping. The defendant's evidence to the contrary that he had informed them the true position was not believed.

It also found that at the time of the marriage, the defendant-respondent Shankarlal falsely represented that he was a pure Brahmin. It further found that the mariage had never been consummated.

On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed these findings. He held that the plaintiffs evidence was to be eleminated completely as no misrepresentation could have been made to her as the marriage negotiations were carried on between her father and brother on the one hand and Kundanlal and his brother on the other hand at the shop of Kasturchand, where admittedly she was not present. As for the evid