JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the decree dated 25.10.71 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow in Appeal No. 214 under section 229-B of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against the decree dated 7.4.1970 passed by the Assistant Collector First Class, Lucknow in case No. 12/205 of 1969-70/district Lucknow. 2. The second appeal had been heard and dismissed earlier by a learned Member S.K. Sarkar on 20.12.72. In writ petition No. 64 of 1973, however, the Hon'ble High Court by its order dated 26.2.78 has set aside the order of the learned Member and directed the Board of Revenue to register the second appeal to its own register and decided it in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act 1955. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 4. Srimati Khilloo had filed a suit under section 229-B, U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act against Umman and others on the allegation that her husband Chanai was the sirdar of plot No. 1632 and after her husband's death on 27.9.1966 she succeeded to the plot in suit. Mutation was, however, effected in the name of the Umman who sold the land in suit in favour of Vednath and Trijugi. Srimati Khilloo prayed for a declaration that she was the sirdar of the plot no. 1632. Umman and others contested the suit by alleging that Srimati Khilloo never married Chanai and was not his widow,and that Umman himself was the brother and heir of the deceased Chanai. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that Srimati Khilloo was not the widow of Chanai, but the lower appellate court revered this finding and decreed the suit. 5. The only point for determination in this second appeal is whether Srimati Khilloo is the widow of the deceased Chanai or not, and according to the direction of the Hon'ble High Court this has to be decided in the light of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 6. It is an admitted case of both the contesting parties that Srimati Khilloo had originally married Vasowone. Srimati Khilloo has, however, claimed that she remarried Chanai near about 1952 in 'Chala' form of marriage and this fact is contested by the appellate. 7. 6. It is an admitted case of both the contesting parties that Srimati Khilloo had originally married Vasowone. Srimati Khilloo has, however, claimed that she remarried Chanai near about 1952 in 'Chala' form of marriage and this fact is contested by the appellate. 7. The relevant provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are as follows: "S. 4 overriding effect to Act-Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act- (a) any text, rules or interpretation of Hindu Law or any custom or usage or part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act". (b)any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect insofar as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act". "S.7. Ceremonies of Hindu marriage-(1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is the taking of seven steps by the bride groom and the bride jointly before sacred fire), the marriage becomes completed and binding when the seventh step is taken". 8. In addition, section 6 of Hindu Widows' Remarriage Act, 1856 is also relevant and is reproduced below: "S.6 Ceremonies constituting valid marriage to have same effect on widow marriage. Whatever words spoken, ceremonies performed or engagement made on the marriage of a Hindu Female who has not been previously married, are sufficient to constitute a valid marriage, shall have the same effect if spoken, performed or made on the marriage of Hindu widow: and no marriage shall be declared invalid on the ground that such words, ceremonies or engagements are inapplicable to the case of widow." 9. The legal effect of the above provisions is that even though Smt. Khilloo claims to be remarried through the 'Chala' system, the burden of proving that the remarriage was solemnised in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies is still on her and if she fails to do so, her claim to be the widow of the deceased Chanai on the basis of alleged remarriage will fall through. 10. I propose to go into the question of this alleged remarriage in same depth. 10. I propose to go into the question of this alleged remarriage in same depth. Now, the evidence of Srimati Khilloo and her witnesses on this point is contradictory and unconvincing. Thus Srimati Khilloo has mentioned the rites performed at the time of her alleged remarriage and said that she does not know if any writing was done before the Chala ceremony, but her witnesses Kalloo (P.W. 2), who is also her uncle and claims to have got the 'Chala' ceremony performed, categorically states that writing was done before the Chala ceremonies P.W. 3, Nokhey has mentioned that "Katha" was also performed at the time of "Chala", but neither Srimati Khilloo nor Kalloo say anything about the Katha. Then, Srimati Khilloo has stated that her last husband was Natha and the second husband was Chanai. While in the Members' Register of village Hasanpur, Srimati Khilloo is recorded as the wife of Chandirika. The same is the entry in the Adult Register of the village. In the members' register of Gaon Sabha Gyanipur, Srimati Khilloo is recorded as the wife of one Natha. There is not a single extract either from any Gaon Sabha register or from the voters' list to show that Srimati Khilloo was the wife or widow of Chanai. 11. There is another piece of evidence which has been ignored by the courts below. This is the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Lucknow dated 23.3.1968 in "Aslam Husain and others v. The State" Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1968. In this judgment, the following is recorded: "Srimati Khilloo deserted her first husband Chandrika of Hasangaj, District Unnao and became the Charbaithi of one Chanai of Shernagar, P.S. Malihabad. This Chanai died of snake-bite some time about December, 1966. On Chanai's death, Srimati Khilloo resumed her visits to her former husband Chandrika". 12. Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 provides that the first condition for Hindu marriage is that neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage. Section 11 of the Act also provides that any marriage solemnised after the commencement of the Act will be null and void if it contravenes any one of the conditions specified in section 5. Thus, the evidence suggests that Chandrika, the duly married husband of srimati Khilloo was still alive when she claims to have remarriage Chanai and that she had merely deserted Chandrika. Thus, the evidence suggests that Chandrika, the duly married husband of srimati Khilloo was still alive when she claims to have remarriage Chanai and that she had merely deserted Chandrika. This would show that Smt. Khilloo was not married with Chanai in accordance with law but was merely having illicit relations with him, This cannot confer on her the status of being the wife or widow of Chanai and she cannot be entitled to claim succession from Chanai merely on the basis of illicit relations. 13. Yet another interesting aspect of the case is that according to the deposition of Srimati Khilloo herself, she had a son born from Chanai and this son is alive. Under Section 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, the son is a preferential heir to a nephew. Thus, on her own admission, her case cannot be sustained. 14. A careful perusal of the evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that Srimati Khilloo was never married to Chanai in accordance with law and is not his widow. The trial court had rightly dismissed the suit, and the lower appellate court had erred in decreeing the suit. The finding of the learned Additional Commissioner has also not been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court in the writ petition. 15. In the light of the above discussion, I hereby allow the second appeal, set aside the order of the lower appellate court and restore the order of the trial court.