S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) At the time of arguments no one appeared on behalf of respondents hence only learned Counsel for the petitioner was heard.
(2.) Smt. Kalawati recorded tenure-holder sold the land in dispute to the petitioners through registered sale deed dated 21.6.1974. She had inherited the property from her second husband Mulua (her previous husband was Pratap after whose death she married with Mulua). Original respondent No. 4 Smt. Murti daughter of Kalawati and Mulua filed suit under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act being Suit No. 35 of 1973-74 challenging the said sale deed on the ground that after the death of Mulua and before execution of the sale deed Smt. Kalawati had re-married with one Hori in the form of Karo hence she lost her right in the property in dispute and she was not authorized to sell the same. Assistant Collector 1st Class, Moradabad held that no re-marriage was proved hence suit was dismissed on 4.8.1975. Against the said judgment and decree Smt. Murti filed appeal being Appeal No. 212 before Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly. Appellate Court held that remarriage had taken place in between Kalawati and Hori hence Kalawati had no authority to execute the sale deed. Appeal was therefore allowed on 18.6.1978, sale deed was declared to be void and respondent No. 4 was declared as Bhoomidhar of the and in dispute. Judgment of the 1st Appellate Court was affirmed by Board of Revenue of Second Appeal Nos. 251 and 252 of 1977-78 through judgment and decree dated 25.11.1980. Board of Revenue held that findings recorded by Lower Appellate Court were findings of fact involving no question of law. Review petitions bearing Nos. 22 and 23 were filed before Board of Revenue which were also dismissed on 23.1.2.1980 hence this writ petition.
(3.) Plaintiff-respondent No. 4 and her witnesses stated that about six or seven years before filing of the suit Smt. Kalawati had done Karo with Hori. However, name of Smt. Kalawati continued to be recorded in the revenue records even after the alleged Karo marriage and till the execution of the sale deed. It was stated by the witnesses of the plaintiff that Karo was performed by distributing Bstashas (very ordinary form of sweet popular in villages) and Smt. Kalawati was wearing choories and bichuwas. No overt act on the part of the lady was alleged Karo marriage is not a valid marriage under Hindu Marriage Act unless it is proved that in the particular community to which parties belonged such marriage was customarily accepted to be valid marriage. Absolutely no evidence in respect of custom was adduced.;