JUDGMENT Drake Brockrnan S.M., J. - The point for determination was whether Mst. Ramdei, the widow of an occupancy tenant, had re-married. Her first husband Ganga Sahai died in November, 1918. She has a son whom she says was a posthumous son of her first husband but whom the landlord alleges was born from her on 10th March, 1920, under an entry in the register of births for the village concerned with Ganga Ram as father. This child has not been produced in Court at any stage so that one could judge of his age. 2. It seems to be proved that Ganga Ram is a married man with two legitimate children and lives in a house of his own, while Mst. Ramdei lives in a house of her own. Though one Chanda deposes that kirao did take place, there is no evidence of any ceremonies, even the smallest, having taken place so as to signify re-marriage. On the whole it would appear that Mst. Ramdei has been nothing but a concubine of Ganga Ram. The law does not penalise 'living in sin' by a widow but re-marriage. Granted that re-marriage is not a very formal ceremony, amongst Chamars, but there must have been some ceremony of some sort so as to signify some sort of religious or legal contract. The learned Commissioner seems to accept the fact of remarriage but falls short of saying so. I do not think he was entirely satisfied in his mind that re-marriage had taken place. 3. Granted that this village is managed through karindas who do not live in it, but the marriage was alleged by the landholder writing in 1934 to have taken place about 10 years before, which should be 1924, and if re-marriage had taken place one would have expected it to have taken place before or soon after the birth of the son to Mst. Ramdei alleged to have been by Ganga Ram. This could not have been later than early in 1920. Social relations between these people are presumably not very strict. The case of the landholder seems to have been based mainly on the fact that Ganga Ram, etc., were cultivating but not paying any rent so far as could be ascertained. Ramdei alleged to have been by Ganga Ram. This could not have been later than early in 1920. Social relations between these people are presumably not very strict. The case of the landholder seems to have been based mainly on the fact that Ganga Ram, etc., were cultivating but not paying any rent so far as could be ascertained. However, they were recorded as cultivators for the first time in 1341 in two numbers and in 1340 for four numbers, but one number, namely 1204, was definitely recorded at a rental in the possession of one Nihal. Nothing definite can be inferred from this evidence as regards re-marriage or otherwise 4. I would allow the appeal, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and restore the order of the lower Court with costs and Rs. 10, pleader's fees. Knox J.M. 5. I concur.