Short Note : 1. The lands originally belonged to Samarudas, his widow Laxmi Bai and Kishundas their son. Fulkunwar is the widow of Kishundas. After her husband's death, she remarried the defendant No. 1 Sukhdas in Churri form Chammarin Bai is the daughter of Kishundas through Fulkunwar. Kishundas and Fulkunwar are dead. Chammarin Bai who was dumb also died in the year 1965. The parties are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. After the death of Kishundas, Mst. Fulkunwar lost her right of inheritance because of her remarriage with defendant No. 1. Defendant No.1 executed a sale-deed of a part of the disputed lands of village Nawagaon in favour of defendant No.2 Gulabsingh on March 20, 1958. The plaintiff, because of his being the son of Manjhhidas who was the brother of Samarudas, is entitled to possession of the suit lands and the sale-deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No.2 is ineffective against his interest since defendants 1 and 2 have dispossessed the plaintiff of the suit lands. This suit has been instituted for possession. Both the Courts below decreed the suit, hence this appeal by defendants. Held : Judavandas (P. W. 4) is the priest of the family. He stated that after the death of Kishundas, he put on the customary Pagri on the head of the plaintiff who has performed the last rites. In paragraph 3, he has stated that the plaintiff is a cousin of Kishundas. The plaintiff has also performed the last rights of Kishundas's wife. Manikdas (P. W. 5) stated that. Manjhhidas and Samarudas were real brothers. This statement could not be rejected because he has heard of this fact. 2. Defendant Sukhdas (P. W. 8) pleaded ignorance regarding the relationship of Kishunda, and Manjhhidas as also of Samarudas and Manjhhidas. In paragraph 23, he, however, admitted that Judavandas (P. W. 4) being the family priest will be the person best suited to know the relationship and, therefore, his evidence deserves acceptance. 3. In view of the above evidence, I am of the view that section 50 of the Evidence Act is clearly attracted and the plaintiff is definitely a cousin of the deceased Kishundas and will be definitely a preferential heir in contrast with defendant No.1 who simply claims relationship with the family because of his remarriage with Fulkunwar. 3. In view of the above evidence, I am of the view that section 50 of the Evidence Act is clearly attracted and the plaintiff is definitely a cousin of the deceased Kishundas and will be definitely a preferential heir in contrast with defendant No.1 who simply claims relationship with the family because of his remarriage with Fulkunwar. It is settled that a widow after remarriage lost all interest in her former husband's property. In the circumstances, Sukhdas had no right to alienate the property left behind by Chammarin Bai. It is apparent that defendant No.1 is somehow trying to grab the property left behind by Chammarin Bai because he falsely pleaded adoption and a will which have been held not proved by both the Courts below In the circumstances, the lower Court was right in holding the plaintiff to be entitled to the suit lands and his suit for possession was rightly decreed. I find no substance in this appeal. AIR 1954 S. C. 601, 1961 JLJ 238 , AIR 1968 Pat. 481 and AIR 1959 SC 914 relied on. Appeal dismissed.