Short Note : The plaintiff daughter claims that after the death of her father Balli, she being the sole surviving heir, inherited all the property in dispute. The stand taken by respondent No.1 Jugribai is that she was widow of deceased Balli who died before 8th December 1961. Therefore, the property devolved on her according to the schedule mentioned in the Land Revenue Code as in force prior to 8th December 1961. The daughter was excluded from getting any share in the father's property. She, therefore, inherited the entire property and the suit must, therefore, fail. Held: There is no evidence of marriage of Balli with Jugribai and if such a presumption cannot be raised under the facts and circumstances of the case, the marriage of Balli with respondent No.1 would stand disproved. Now Jugribai has admitted that even at the time of giving evidence, her former husband Jugru was alive. In face of such admission, it was necessary that she pleaded and proved that she was divorced by Jugru; that there was a custom in the community that such divorce was permitted and the form of divorce and lastly, whether such formalities of divorce had been actually undergone. Nothing has been pleaded by her nor has any custom to that effect been established. There was thus an impediment in the way of Jugribai marrying Balli. In such a situation, no presumption can arise by continuous living for a long time. Moreover, it has been proved that Jugribai had come to the house of Balli when Balli's former wife, mother of plaintiff, was alive. This would again reinforce the conclusion that Jugribai came to the house as a concubine and not as wife. I would, therefore, hold that in the circumstances of the case the presumption in favour of marriage was not warranted. In this view of the matter, the appellant must succeed. There is another aspect of the matter. The respondent No.1, even if it is held that she was wife of Balli, could only succeed in getting the entire property to the exclusion of the daughter only if it is established that Balli died before 8th December 1961. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was amended after that date and the provision by which the inheritance was governed was deleted. After 8th December, 1961, the land devolved according to personal law. The Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code was amended after that date and the provision by which the inheritance was governed was deleted. After 8th December, 1961, the land devolved according to personal law. Prior to 8th December 1961, it was inherited according as was indicated in the schedule. Now, since Jugribai was claiming the special law to her assistance she ought to prove that Balli died prior to 8th December 1961. The primary burden was on her. The evidence in the case was not such as proves beyond reasonable doubt that Balli died prior to 8th December, 1961. The appellant must also succeed on the short point. It is contended that the devolution of house property would not be governed by the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code. The disputed house is situated in an abadi area and, therefore, it cannot be treated as agricultural land. Appeal allowed.