1 2025:CGHC:59865 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SA No. 73 of 2012 1 - Baljeet (Died) Through LRs- 1. (A). Basant Lal Kushwaha S/o Shri Vishnu Prasad Kushwaha Aged About 38 Years R/o Villae Bhuwneshwarpur P.S. & Tahsil Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Amarnath (Died) Through LRs- 1.(A) Dinesh Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Late Shri Amarnath Kushwaha, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Champak Nagar, Post Dev Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 1.(B) Ravishankar Kushwaha, S/o Late Shri Amarnath Kushwaha, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Champak Nagar, Post Dev Nagar, P.S. And Tahsil Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Collector, Surguja, Ambikapur (Chhattisgarh). 3 - Biralal, S/o Ramcharan Sahu, Aged About 51 Years Caste Teli, R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur, Thana Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh). 4 - Bhola Ram (Died) Through LRs- 4. (A) Sudama Prasad Choubey, S/o Late Shri Bholaram, Aged About 64 Years R/o Vill. And Post Bhuvneshwarpur, P.S. And Tah. Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4. (B) Ambika Prasad Choubey, S/o Late Shri Bholaram Aged About 50 Years R/o Vill. And Post Bhuvneshwarpur, P.S. And Tah. Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Vishundayal S/o Baljeet, Aged About 55 Years Caste Koir, R/o Village Bhuneshwarpur, Thana Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 6 - Smt. Devti, W/o Khelsai Singh Aged About 70 Years Caste Gond, R/o Village Shivpur, Thana Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surajpur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Shri Kshitiz Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents 1A&B : Shri Ashok Shukla, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : Shri Sushil Dubey, Advocate. For State : Shri Kalpesh Ruparel, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Judgment on Board 09.12.2025 1. Present Second Appeal under Section 100 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed by the plaintiff against the impugned judgment and decree dated 01.08.2011 passed by Additional District Judge Surajpur, District Surguja, in Civil Appeal No.14-A/2011 whereby the First Appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 24.03.2009 passed by IInd Civil Judge Class-II Surajpur, District Surguja, in Civil Suit No.8-A/2008 has been dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial court has been affirmed. 2. On 25.11.2013, the appeal was admitted by the court for hearing on the following substantial question of law: “1. Whether the findings arrived at by the two courts below in respect of the marriage of late Durpat with Jagjahir is correct or not ? 2. Whether the said Durpat would inherit the coparcenary property belonging to the plaintiff and his uncle Jagjahir.?” 3. The plaintiff filed a civil suit for declaration of title over the suit property of Schedule-A, permanent injunction and declaration of sale deed dated 14.12.1988 as null and void with respect to suit property of Schedule-B annexed with the plaint. The pleadings made by the plaintiff in the plaint was that, the suit property of Schedule-A of the plaint are the self acquired property of plaintiff and his two uncles late Vishwanath and Jagjahir. The plaintiff is title holder of half share of the suit property of Schedule-A and his two uncles are having half share over the suit property. Vishwanath died issuless since 15 years back and half share of the property of Vishwanath was obtained by Jagjahir 3 in which the plaintiff is title holder of 5/8 share and Jagjahir was title holder of 3/8 share. In the year, 1983, Jagjahir also died issuless. His wife Gendli Bai also died in the year 1984 and thus the entire property was inherited by the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 earlier married with Bageshar who was resident of village Parri and there was no divorce between them. Since 10-11 years back, she was residing at her parents house and developed illicit relation with Jagjahir and thereafter she started residing with Jagjahir and for that reason the wife of Jagjahir namely Gendli Bai went back to her parents house. The defendant No.1 never married with Jagjahir and therefore she has no right or title over the suit property. In the year, 1987 when the plaintiff received a notice from revenue court, then he came to know that the name of defendant No.1 was mutated in the revenue records and she filed an application for partition of the suit property. When the plaintiff raised objection, the revenue court passed an order to get their title decided by the competent civil court. However, the plaintiff could not file civil suit due to poverty and thereafter the Tehsildar passed an order on 30.09.1988 for partition of the suit property. On 23.12.1988 the plaintiff further came to know that defendant No.1 has sold some part of the suit property to defendant No.2. The defendant No.2 sold the property to defendant No.4&5 on 28.01.1997, in favour of defendant No.6 on on 30.01.1997, in favour of defendant No.7 on 18.06.1997 and in favour of defendant No.8 on 22.01.1997. The part of suit property was illegally sold by defendant No.1 and therefore the 4 purchasers are not entitled for the property and thus he filed the suit claiming the relief as mentioned hereinabove. 4. The defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff and filed their written statement, denied the plaint averment, and pleaded that Jagjahir was residing separately after obtaining his share of property. The defendant No.1 was the wife of Jagjahir and after death of Jagjahir she inherited his property and her name was mutated in the revenue records. On 14.12.1988 the defendant No.1 sold her share of property to defendant No.2. It is also pleaded that in the year 1950 the defendant No.1 married with Jagjahir as per their customary rituals and till the lifetime of Jagjahir she resided with him as his wife. Her marriage was performed after Chhorchhutti between Jagjahir and Gendli Bai. After their separation by Chhorchhutti, Gendli Bai was having no relation with Jagjahir and she remarried with some other person at Ambikapur. It is further pleaded that the parties belong to Koir caste and in their caste and community “Dhuku” custom is prevailing, according to which, if a married lady left her husband and resides with other person, she would be treated as wife of that other person and as per the Bandhwa custom, remarriage of either of the spouse is also permitted. The defendant No.1 married with Bageshar from the time of her childhood, but she was residing as the wife of Jagjahir since then and as per Bandhwa custom of the community and family, she is the wife of Jagjahir. It is further pleaded that in the year 1997 a Panchayat meeting was also convened in which the plaintiff has admitted that defendant No.1 is the wife of Jagjahir and he sold his property by his 5 rightful ownership and he executed a document to that effect also. The plaintiff never raised any objection that defendant No.1 is not the wife of Jagjahir and therefore as per the principles of estoppel the plaintiff is stopped from saying anything against his conduct. There is no cause of action against the defendants and the suit of plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 5. The defendant No.8 also contested the suit of plaintiff and filed her written statement separately, denied the plaint averment and submitted that suit property was acquired by Dwarika and as per the Surguja State Settlement, by mistake the plaintiff’s share is erroneously recorded as ½ share whereas he is having 1/3rd share over the suit property. The share of the property of late Vishwanath was inherited by Jagjahir and since 40 years back he got his property partitioned and remained in possession over his part of land. After Chhorchhutti with Gendli Bai, Jagjahir performed Bandhwa marriage with defendant No.1-Durpat. After Chhorchhutti with Jagjahir, Gendli Bai remarried at village Karanji and she is having a major son from her subsequent marriage. Durpat engaged in Bandhwa marriage with Jagjahir after Chhorchhutti from her ex husband Bageshar and thereafter Bageshar also remarried at Harrapara from which one son Chintamani was borne. It is also pleaded that after Chhorchhutti with Gendli, Jagjahir remarried with Durpat and at that time there was Chhorchhutti between Durpat and Bageshar and their marriage was valid marriage and after death of Jagjahir his property was inherited by Durpat. The revenue court has also passed an order with respect to ½ share of the property 6 in favour of defendant No.1 and after verifying the entire revenue records they have purchased the property and they are the bonafide purchaser. 6. To prove the claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1, Narayan Prasad Kushwaha, PW-2, Jageshar PW-3, Ramavtar, PW-4 and relied upon documents Ex. P/1 which is Surguja State Settlement Record. The defendants have examined Chandul Ram, DW-1, Balram, DW-2, “Gopal Ram, DW-3, Khelsai, DW-4, Kashinath DW-5, Amarnath, DW-6, Ugrah Narayan, DW-7, Sukhraj, DW-8 and Jodhan, DW-9 and they relied upon the documents Ex.D/1 to D/9 which are affidavit of Chandul Ram, D/1, affidavit of Deveshi Singh, D/2, Power of attorney executed by Devti Singh, D/3, the sale deed executed by Amarnath in favour of Devti Bai, D/4, copy of voter list D/5 & D/6, B-1 Kistbandi D/7, Khasra Panchshala D/8 and registered sale deed executed by Durpat in favour of Amarnath D/9, Sanshodhan Panji D/10, Oder sheet dated 30.09.1988 of Naib Tehsildar Surajpur D/11 and D/12 is B-1 Kistbandi. 7. On the basis of pleadings made by the parties, the trial court framed issues and after due appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties comes into conclusion that defendant No.1 Durpat Bai is the wife of Jagjahir and she validly executed the sale deed of suit property of Schedule-B in favour of defendant No.2 on 14.12.1988 and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief and suit was dismissed vide its judgment and decree dated 24.03.2009. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court was challenged by the plaintiff before the first appellate court where the judgment and decree 7 of trial court has been affirmed and the first appeal of plaintiff has been dismissed. Hence this Second Appeal which was admitted by court on the substantial question of law as set out in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 8. Leaned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that marriage of Jagjahir with Gendli Bai is admitted by the parties, however, there is no evidence with respect to their Chhorchhutti and thus even if the defendant No.1 Durpat Bai was residing with Jagjahir, her status cannot be said to be the wife of Jagjahir as there is no concept of second wife in Hindu Laws. Though the evidence suggests that Durpat Bai resided with Jagjahir, however, no presumption can be drawn that she is married wife of Jagjahir. When Chhorchhutti between Jagjahir and Gendli Bai has not been proved, neither the defendant No.1 can be considered to be the wife of Jagjahir nor she could inherit the property of Jagjahir. Jagjahir and Durpat were issuless and after death of Jagjahir, the property revert back to the plaintiff who is Class-II heir of Jagjahir. He would further submit that the customs prevailing in the community and family has not been duly proved by the defendants. The defendant No.1 Durpat Bai was also married earlier with one Bageshar, however, there is no evidence to the fact that there was Chhorchhutti between Durpat and Bageshar also and she could not reside with Jagjahir. Even if she was residing with Jagjahir, her status could not be the wife of Jagjahir. The trial court as well as the first appellate court has passed the judgment and decree considering long cohabitation of Durpat Bai with Jagjahir and considered that Durpat Bai 8 is the wife of Jagjahir and plaintiff could not inherit the property of Jagjahir as during the lifetime of Durpat she sold the suit property of Schedule-B to defendant No.2 by her rightful ownership. He would further submit that the findings recorded by the courts below are perverse to the fact of present case and the same is liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is required to be decreed. 9. On the other hand, the counsel for the respective respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court as well as first appellant court and would submit that there is no sufficient evidence on record that Durpat Bai was earlier married with Bageshar and after Chhorchhuti between them, Durpat Bai entered into Bandhwa marriage with Jagjahir. At that time, there was Chhorchhutti between Jagjahir and his wife Gendli Bai. After their Chhorchhutti Gendli Bai remarried with another person and resided at village Karanji. After Chhorchhutti between Durpat Bai and Bageshar, Bageshar also remarried with another lady and Chintamani was borne from their wedlock. Therefore, the fact of Chhorchhutti has been either admitted or proved by the witnesses and by the conduct of the parties also it is settled that defendant No.1 Durpat Bai was the wife of Jagjahir and she inherited his property after his death. He would further submit that from the evidence of defendants, their customary law prevailing in the community and family has duly been proved and in absence of any cross examination to their customary law, it cannot be discarded for its consideration. After death of Jagjahir, the name of defendant No.1 was duly recorded in the revenue records as his LRs 9 and the Tehsildar has passed an order for partition giving ½ share of suit property to the defendant No.1 and she sold the property to defendant No.2. There is no infirmity or illegality in the judgments passed by both the courts below and therefore the substantial question of law framed by this court may be answered in favour of respondents. 10. I have heard the counsel for the parties, considering their rival submissions and perused the records of the trial court. Consideration of substantial Question of Law No.1. 11. In the present case there is no direct evidence with respect to marriage between Jagjahir and Durpat. There is issue with respect to marriage of Durpat, Jagjahir, Gendli Bai and Bageshar. There are evidence that Durpat earlier married with Bageshar and after Chhorchhutti between them, Durpat entered into Bandhwa marriage with Jagjahir. Likewise, Jagjahir earlier married with Gendli Bai and after Chhorchhutti between them, Jagjahir entered Bandhwa marriage with Durpat Bai. It also came on evidence that after their Chhorchutti, Gendli Bai and Bageshar also remarried with respective persons and resided at their village and procured children. One of the consideration of holding Durpat as wife of Jagjahir is the presumption of marriage due to long cohabitation of Durpat with Jagjahir. It is also issue in the present case about customs of the family as to whether Chhorchhutti is prevailing in the community and family or not?. 12. With respect to custom of Chhorchhutti in the family, the evidence of DW-1, Chandul Ram is relevant. He has stated in his evidence that from the ancient time Chhorchhutti and Bandhwa remarriage custom is 10 prevailing in their community and family which is still continue. He also named the persons who entered in Chhorchhutti and Bandhwa remarriage with other persons as an exemplary explanation. This part of his examination in chief has not been cross examined by the plaintiff. Not a single suggestion was given to this witness that there is no custom of Chhorchhutti or Bandhwa marriage in the community or family. When this evidence given in examination in chief has not been cross examined by the opposite party to rebut the same, it deems to be admitted by the opposite party. 13. PW-1, Baljeet, have stated in his evidence that marriage of Jagjahir was solemnized with Gendli Bai. After one year of death of Jagjahir, Gendli Bai also died. He states that defendant No.1 Durpat Bai is the wife of Bageshar. At village Champak Nagar, the sister of Jagjahir was residing where he used to visit regularly and 12-13 years back Jagjahir & Durpat came in contact with each other and Jagjahir took Durpat with him. 3-4 years after residing together, Jagjahir died. When Durpat started residing with Jagjahir, Gendli Bai came to back to her parents house. He did not know as to whether after death of Jagjahir his property was mutated in the name of Durpat or not. He too have taken care of Durpat and even after death of Jagjahir, Durpat was maintained by him. In the evidence, PW-1 have not stated that there was no Chhorchhutti between Gendli Bai and Jagjahir. This witness has mainly stated that Durpat was the wife of Bageshar and there was no Chhorchhutti between them. However, this witness have not denied that Durpat was also residing with Jagjahir as his wife. He too have 11 stated in paragraph 23 of his cross examination that if there would be a dispute between husband and wife, the custom of Chhorchhutti is prevailing in his community. He denied the suggestion that after Chhorchhutti with Jagjahir, Gendli Bai remarried at village Karanji. He shown his ignorance about son of Gendli Bai from her subsequent husband. He even denied by saying that he did not know Durpat. He admits that Bageshar married with Lavango and out of their wedlock one son was borne who is presently aged about 50 years. He further admits that after leaving his wife Durpat, Bageshar remarried with Lavango Bai. He did not know the fact that Durpat Bai filed any application for partition before the Tehsildar in which the partition order was passed. 14. Narayan Prasad Kushwaha, PW-2, have also stated in his evidence that 2-3 years before death of Jagjahir, Durpat Bai started residing with him as his wife, however, he did not know about mutation of her name in the revenue records after death of Jagjahir. When a question has been asked from this witness that Gendli Bai also remarried at village Karanji after leaving Jagjahir and she gave birth to a male child, he answered that he did not know about this fact. He admits that Chintamani is son of Bageshar who is presently aged about 50 years. He further states in paragraph 17 of his cross examination that he knows the fact that Durpat married with Jagjahir from her childhood. He did not know as to whether after Chhorchhutti between Jagjahir and Gendli Bai, Jagjahir entered into Bandhwa marriage with Durpat. 12 15. PW-3, Jageshar, have stated in his evidence that there was no Chhorchhutti between Durpat and Bageshar. There was dispute between Bageshar and Durpat as Bageshar was having illicit relation with his sister in law and thereafter his sister in law started residing with Bageshar. He too have admitted in his cross examination that custom of Chhorchhutti was prevailing in the community. He shown his ignorance that Jagjahir kept Durpat as his wife under the prevailing custom of the community. He also did not know as to whether Jagjahir performed marriage with Durpat or not. Chintamani is the son of Bageshar and Lavango Bai is his mother. He admits that since 60 years back Bageshar married with Lavango Bai. He admits that after 2- 3 years of marriage between Bageshar and Durpat, there was Chhorchhutti between them and thereafter Bageshar remarried at Harrapara and after Chhorchhutti with the lady of Harrapara, he performed marriage with Lavango. He did not know as to whether after Chhorchhutti between Bageshar and Durpat she entered into Bandhwa marriage with Jagjahir. 16. PW-4, Ramavtar, is also a witness to the fact that there was no Chhorchhutti between Bageshar and Durpat, however, he also admits the fact that Chintamani is the son of Bageshar who borne from Bageshar and Lavango. He admits that Bageshar performed Dhuku marriage with his sister in law i.e. Lavango Bai. He admits custom of Chhorchhutti, Dhuku & Bandhwa marriage prevailing in the community. He admits that there was Chhochhutti between Bageshar and Durpat 13 and thereafter Durpat married with Jagjahir and she was residing with him since 50 years back. 17. The entire evidence led by the plaintiff is with respect to Chhorchhutti between Bageshar and Durpat, however, none of the plaintiff’s witnesses have stated that there was no chhorchhutti between Gendli Bai and Jagjahir which is the main limb of argument of the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the plaintiff have argued that though there is presumption of marriage against long cohabitation by a man and woman, however, there is an exception that the concerned parties should not have any living spouse. In the present case their own witnesses have not stated about living spouse of Jagjahir and on the other side their own witnesses have admitted that there was Chhorchhutti between Bageshar and Durpat and thereafter Durpat entered into Bandhwa marriage with Jagjahir which was prevailing custom of the community. 18. DW-2, Balram have proved the fact that Jagjahir earlier married with Gendli Bai. After 4-5 years of their marriage Chhorchhutti took place between them as per their customs and Gendli Bai remarried at Bhattapara Ambikapur from whom one Shobhnath borne. There was no relation between Jagjahir & Gendli Bai after Chhorchhutti. Likewise, Durpat Bai also earlier married with Bageshar and Chhorchhutti took place between them also and since 50-60 years back Durpat entered into Bandhwa marriage with Jagjahir as per prevailing custom of their community and she started residing as wife of Jagjahir in the village. Bageshar also remarried with his sister in law Lavango Bai from whom 14 one son Chintamani borne. Thus, after Chhorchhutti, the parties have remarried. He firmly stated that there was Bandhwa marriage between Durpat and Jagjahir and she started residing with Jagjahir since 60 years back. 19. DW-3, Gopal Ram, have also proved the fact of Chhorchhutti between Gendli Bai & Jagjahir, Bageshar & Durpat, and remarriage of Gendli Bai at Bhattaparaa and remarriage of Durpat Bai with Jagjahir under their prevailing customs. He too have firmly stated in his evidence that after Chhorchhutti with Bageshar, Durpat remarried with Jagjahir and started residing with him as his wife. 20. All the defendant witnesses i.e. Khelsai, DW-4, Kashinath DW-5, Amarnath, DW-6, Ugrah Narayan, DW-7, Sukhraj, DW-8 and Jodhan, DW-9, have supported the defendant’s case that there was prevailing custom of Chhochhutti in the community and Dhuku and Bandhwa marriage was permissible after Chhorchhutti between Durpat & Bageshar and between Jagjahir & Gendli Bai, Durpat Bai entered into Bandhwa marriage with Jagjahir and she is his wife. After their Chhorchutti, Gendli Bai remarried at Bhattapara and Bageshar remarried with Lavango Bai and they are having their separate families. Long cohabitation of Durpat Bai as the wife of Jagjahir could not be rebutted by the plaintiff either by their own evidence or by the evidence of defendants. 21. In the matter of Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan and Another Vs. Kattukandil Edathil Valsan and Others, 2022 (16) SCC 71, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that if a man and woman lives 15 together for a long years as husband and wife, there would be a presumption in favour of wedlock. Such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act although the presumption is rebuttable. It was observed in the said judgment as under : “16. In Andrahennedige Dinohamy and Anr. v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy and Ors., the Privy Council laid down the general proposition as under: "...where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage." 17. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, once again it was laid down by the Privy Council as under: "The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years." 18. In Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Others, it was held by this Court that a strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where two partners have lived together for long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seek to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon the bastardy. 19. In S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan alias Andali Padayachi and Others4, this Court held as under: "4. What has been settled by this Court is that if a man and woman live together for long years as husband and wife then a presumption arises in law of legality of marriage existing between the two. But the presumption is rebuttable. [See: Gokul Chand v. Parvin Kumari - AIR 1952 231 : 1952 SCR 825]" 20. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Tulsa and Others v. Durghatiya and Others5; Challamma v. Tilaga and Others6; Madan Mohan Singh and Others v. Rajni Kant and Another7 and Indra Sarma v. V.K.V. Sarma8 21. According to the plaintiffs, Damodaran had married Chiruthakutty in the year 1940. However, there is no direct evidence of their marriage. The first plaintiff Krishnan was born in the year 1942. Therefore, the question for consideration in these appeals is whether there is sufficient evidence to prove the long co habitation to establish the relationship of husband wife between Damodaran and Chiruthakutty.” 22. Same proposition was laid down by the Supreme Court in SPS Balasubramanyam Vs. Suruttayan Alias Andali Padayachi, 16 AIR1992 SC 756, that long cohabitation of a man and woman gives presumption of their wedlock. 23. Under the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, in the present case it is proved by the defendants that Durpat Bai was residing with Jagjahir for about 50-60 years as his wife and the plaintiff could not rebut the presumption by leading evidence with respect to the fact that there was no Chhorchhutti between Gendli Bai and Jagjahir. Therefore, the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the first appellate court that Durpat Bai married with Jagjahir and residing with him as his wife, is a finding based on proper appreciation of evidence as well as law laid down by the Supreme Court and substantial question of law No.1 is answered accordingly. Consideration on Substantial Question of Law No.2- 24. From the aforesaid consideration when it has been held that Durpat Bai is wife of Jagjahir, she was Class-I heir of Jagjahir as provided under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Being the wife of Jagjahir, she inherited his property and was capable to alienate the same by her own right and title. It also comes in the evidence of the parties that after death of Jagjahir, the name of Durpat Bai was mutated in the revenue records which is proved from document Ex.D/12 which is B-1 Kistbandi of the year 1984-85 and an order of partition was passed in her favour by the Naib Tehsildar, Surajpur on 30.09.1988. Under her own title she could alienate the property which she inherited from Jagjahir and accordingly alienated total 1.938 Hect. of land to Amarnath, the defendant No.2, through registered sale deed 17 dated 14.12.1988 and subsequent thereof Amarnath sold 0.34 Hect. of land of Khasra No.1635 to Smt. Devti Bai, the defendant No.8. Thus, Durpat Bai under the status of wife of Jagjahir had inherited the coparcenary property belonging to plaintiff and his Uncle Jagjahir to the extent of share of Jagjahir. Accordingly, the substantial question of Law No.2 is answered in affirmative. 25. In view of aforesaid consideration, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of defendants that Durpat Bai is the wife of Jagjahir and after death of Jagjahir she inherited his property and this court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. 26. An appellate decree be drawn accordingly. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge inder