JUDGMENT : Richards, J. This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of certain immoveable property. The plaintiffs are undoubtedly entitled to a decree unless the defendant, Musammit Inchi, can show that she is the widow of one Johri. Admittedly, her husband was alive when she went to live with Johri and is still alive. In the plaint it was alleged that she was an unchaste woman living with Johri as his mistress. The written statement was a half-hearted denial of the allegation of unchastity and an allegation that, amongst the Jats, Kurao marriage prevailed. It was not alleged in the written statement that, according to any custom, a married woman whose husband was still alive, Could contract a second marriage. The only evidence as to the existence of such a custom was the admission of one of the plaintiffs' witnesses. He said that if a woman left her first husband and went back to her father's house, she might contract a second marriage. According to the defendant's evidence, she left her first husband because she was dissatisfied with her food and went back to her father who gave her in marriage to Johri. In our opinion, this evidence was wholly insufficient to establish the existence of a custom which would enable Musammat Inchi to contract a valid second marriage. If she was unable to contract such a marriage, she has no right to the property. We allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the court below, and restore the decree of the court of first instance with costs in all courts.