MOUNLAL KACHHI AND ORS. Vs. MAHILA BADIDAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD on the question of admission

(2.) DEFENDANTS , by filing written statement, have denied that plaintiff No. 1 is the wife and plaintiff No. 2 is the son of Hallu. It is said that Hallu was not married with Badibau (plaintiff No. 1) in fact he was married with Aharwali and one son Phullu was born from their wedlock and both have died. The said fact has been concealed by the plaintiffs, however, the marriage of Hallu with plaintiff No. 1 was not solemnized. In that view of the matter, it is urged that plaintiffs are not having any share in the suit property, although in the written statement the fact regarding 1/6 share of Hallu is not disputed in suit property.

(3.) SHRI Arvind Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, has strenuously urged that the plaintiffs have concealed the fact regarding marriage of Hallu with Aharwali and to give birth of one son Phullu from the said wedlock. The aforesaid concealment relates to the right in the property of the Hallu. Two Courts below have not duly considered the aforesaid fact and the finding recorded with respect to solemnization of marriage of plaintiff No. 1 with Hallu appears to be unjust. It is further contended that until and unless the plaintiffs have come with the clean hands, and prove that the marriage of Hallu was legally solemnized with plaintiff No. 1, they cannot claim any share from the suit property.