Short Note : 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal arising out of a suit claiming a declaration that the sale-deed executed by defendant No. 1 Mst. Asmati in favour of the other defendants is invalid and thereafter for possession of the land specified in the plaint on the basis that the plaintiff Mst. Juggo is a widow of 'Kale son of Imrat. The plaintiff claims that she was married to Kale in the year 1937 A.D. in Pat-form according to the caste custom after she had divorced her previous husband Darogi. This is how she claims the suit property as a widow of Kale. The defendant No. 1 Mst. Asmati is a daughter of Kale from his wife Mst. Duliya who, according to the plaintiff, was Kale's first wife. The suit was brought as a result of an alienation made by defendant No. 1. Mst. Asmati in favour of the other defendants. The defendants have denied the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff Mst. Juggo was never married to Kale. 2. The real question in controversy between the parties is whether the plaintiff Mst. Juggo was a legally wedded wife of Kale being married to him in Pat-form in the year 1937 A.D. after divorcing her previous husband Darogi? The first appellate Court on an appreciation of the evidence present has negatived the plaintiff's claim. It has been held that a prior divorce between the plaintiff Mst. Juggo and her husband Darogi had not been proved; the document, Ex. P-1 relied on by the plaintiff herself also showed that she had not been divorced from Darogi even in the year 1941 A.D.; and at best she was merely a concubine of Kale. The plaintiff's suit has failed on account of these findings. Held : The only question involved in this appeal is the same as aforesaid. The finding of the first appellate Court on this question is one of fact and being based on evidence, there is no ground to interfere with the same in this appeal. Ex. P-1. dated 11-6-1941 executed by Darogi in favour of Kale which is relied on by the plaintiff herself, expressly says that till the date of that document Mst. Juggo continued to be married wife of Darogi even though she had started living with Kale without divorcing Darogi. Ex. P-1. dated 11-6-1941 executed by Darogi in favour of Kale which is relied on by the plaintiff herself, expressly says that till the date of that document Mst. Juggo continued to be married wife of Darogi even though she had started living with Kale without divorcing Darogi. In view of this fact being proved by the plaintiff's own evidence, it is obvious that a valid marriage between Mst. Juggo and Kale in 1937 could not have been performed in the Pat-form which is shown to be available only after divorce had been obtained. Thus the very foundation of the plaintiff's own case of her marriage with Kale in 1937 A.D. is knocked out by Ex. P-l. There is also other evidence relied on by the Court below for recording its finding on this question. There is thus no ground to interfere with this finding even on merits. Appeal dismissed.