BIAGA Vs. SUNDARIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiffs who lost in both the Courts below. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law, which arises for decision by this Court.

(2.) THE necessary facts are that the owner of the suit property was one Macha who died prior to 1956, survived by one son by name Radho who is also dead and is represented now by his alleged wife Smt. Sundariya (respondent No. 1). The property in suit was sold by Sundariya (respondent No. 1). by four registered sale deeds Ex. D 1 to Ex. D4 dated 28.2.1978 in favour of respondents No. 2 to 5.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs, in this appeal, invited my attention to paragraph 6 of the plaint and paragraph 5 of the written statement and contended that there was no proper plea of custom of PAT marriage set up by the defendants between Radho and Sundariya and hence the evidence led of PAT marriage could not be looked into and relied upon in favour of Sundariya. Reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Kochan Kant Kunjuraman Kani etc. v. Mathevan Kani Sankaran Kani and Ors. etc. (AIR 1971 S.C. 1398).