JUDGMENT : AIKMAN, J.:— The plaintiff who is appellant here sued for possession of an occupancy holding and other property. The property in suit had belonged to one Badam. It is admitted that the plaintiff is the legitimate son of Badam. The principal defendant is one Kundan, who is said to have been born to Badam by Musammat Mathuri, the widow of Badam's deceased brother. The question at issue in the case is whether Badam entered into a karao marriage with Mathuri. The Court of first instance found that no such marriage was proved and decreed the suit. An appeal by the defendant was allowed by the learned Additional Judge. He says, “it is true there is no evidence of a formal marriage but a karao wedding is usually inferred from the fact of the parties living together as husband and wife, and it is seldom that evidence of a formal ceremony is forthcoming.” The learned Judge also says, “there can be little doubt that for three or four years preceding the death of Badam, Mathuri was living in the same house as Badam.” The plaintiff comes here in second appeal contending that under the Hindu Law no presumption from mere co-habitation arises in favour of a lawful union. I must sustain this plea. The learned vakil for the respondent has not been able to refer me to any authority in support of the opinion expressed by the Judge and I know of none. In decreeing the appeal I think it necessary to remark that the zamindar not having been made a party to the suit, the decree as to the occupancy holding is of course not binding on him. I allow the appeal with costs and setting aside the decree of the lower appellate Court with costs, restore the decree of the Court of first instance.