D.K. Mahajan, J. - (1.) IN this case the parties are Gaur Brahmans of district Gurgaon. The last male -holder was Bidhu who died on the 19th February, 1940, leaving behind his widow Mst. Punian, mother Mst. Bhuri and sister Batto. On his death the land was mutated in the name of his widow. She continued in possession till a mutation was entered on the 15th November, 1952, in favour of Bhuri the mother of Bidhu on the ground that Mst. Punian had contracted a Karewa marriage with Tirlok Chand. Bhuri gifted the land to the fourth degree collateral of her son Bidhu on the 23rd April, 1964. The present suit was filed by Punian for possession of her husband's estate on the ground that Tirlok Chand, Defendant No. 3, who is the son of Khemi. committed rape on her and thereby she became pregnant and gave birth to a child. Thereafter the Defendants who are the donees, turned her out of their house and got the land mutated in favour of Mst. Bhuri on the ground that the Plaintiff had contracted Karewa marriage with Tirlok Chand. Mst. Bhuri died during the pendency of the suit and her daughter Batto was impleaded as her legal representative.
(2.) THE Defendants in their written statement took the position that the Plaintiff was of immoral character and had contracted Karewa with one Sukhi of Gailab; that she was a contesting party to mutation and therefore, estopped from bringing the present suit; that the Defendants had become owners of the suit land by adverse possession; and that by remarriage and in any case by reason of her unchastity, the Plaintiff had forfeited the right to retain her husband's estate. It was also pointed out that a suit had been filed by Tirlok Chand previously and he had obtained a declaratory decree that Plaintiff had not contracted Karewa marriage with him and the child born to the Plaintiff was not his. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the Plaintiff contracted Karewa marriage with Sukhi, as alleged ? If so, its effects ? (2) Whether the Plaintiff became unchaste after the death of her husband namely Bidhu and if so, is there any custom governing the family of parties whereby she loses her rights to possess the inheritance of her husband and that thus she is deprived of the land in dispute ? (as recast) (3) Whether the Plaintiff became pregnant through Defendant No. 3 and gave birth to a child from his loin ? If so, its effect ? (4) Whether the Plaintiff is estopped to challenge the mutation, as alleged in the written statement ? (5) Whether the suit is time -barred ? (6) Whether the Defendant has become owner of the suit land by adverse possession? (7) Whether the family of Bidhu is governed by custom in matters of Karewa in case of a widow and whether the custom is that consequent upon such Karewa she forfeits her rights in the inheritance of her husband ? (as recast) (8) Whether issue No. 3 is res judicata between the Plaintiff and Defendants ? The trial Court held that the Plaintiff had contracted marriage with Sukhi; that the Plaintiff was unchaste; that she had become pregnant through Defendant No. 3 and had given birth to a child; that the Plaintiff was estopped from bringing the present suit; that the suit was barred by time; that the Plaintiff -Defendants had become owners by adverse possession; that the parties were governed by custom and that the finding on issue No. 3, namely, that Plaintiff had become pregnant through Defendant No. 3, was res -judicata. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Against this decision, the Plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Court of Additional District Judge, Gurgaon. The learned Judge allowed the appeal and reversed the decision of the trial Court. The Plaintiff's suit was decreed. It was found by the learned Additional District Judge that the Plaintiff had not contracted Karewa marriage with Sukhi, that the Plaintiff had not become unchaste, that she had been by force subjected to illicit sexual intercourse, that the plain -tiit' was not estopped from challenging the mutation, that the suit was not barred by time, that the Defendants had not become owners of the land in dispute by adverse possession and that the parties were governed by custom and there being no remarriage or un -chastity, the Plaintiff had not forfeited her husband's estate. Against this decision, Batto and Khemi and her sons have preferred the present second appeal.
(3.) THE matter regarding estoppel, remarriage and adverse possession are not open to review in second appeal. The decision of lower appellate Court on these matters is based on evidence. No error of law has been committed. The learned Counsel for the Appellant has rightly not agitated the same in second appeal No arguments were advanced on the question of limitation.;