JUDGMENT Chittatosh Mookerjee, J :– The appellant had brought a suit for a declaration that the marriage between himself and the respondent Anima Mondal according to Hindu rites on May 4, 1974 was void ab initio on the ground that the parties were within the degrees of prohibited relationship and also because the marriage was against the will of the petitioner. The learned Additional District Judge, 11th Court. 24-Parganas has ex parte dismissed the said suit. Hence this appeal. The appellant has filed an application for adducing additional evidence about the relationship between himself and the respondent. 2. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having considered the materials on record, we hold that the marriage between the parties was neither void nor voidable. Therefore, he was not entitled either to a decree declaring the marriage a nullity or for annulling the same. In our view, the appellant has failed to prove that the parties were within the degrees of prohibited relationship within the meaning of clause (iv) of S. 5 or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court below has rightly pointed out that the appellant had failed to examine any of his parents or persons who were likely to have a special knowledge about the relationship of the parties. Therefore, the suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant was bound to fail on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove his case. We have also considered the plaintiff's claim that both the parries were descendants of one Rajnarayan. But we find that they were neither within sapinda relationship nor within the 'prohibited relationship' of each other. 3. According to the appellant, Rajnarayan had three sons–Srikanta, Dharanidhar, and Bhutnath. Srikanta's son was Gajendra. Respondent, Anima's mother, Nandarani, was a daughter of Gajendra. Dharanidhar was another son of Rajnarayan. Dharanidhar's son was Pearimohan, Pearmohan's son was Bharat Chandra. The appellant is the son of Bharat Chandra. 4. 3. According to the appellant, Rajnarayan had three sons–Srikanta, Dharanidhar, and Bhutnath. Srikanta's son was Gajendra. Respondent, Anima's mother, Nandarani, was a daughter of Gajendra. Dharanidhar was another son of Rajnarayan. Dharanidhar's son was Pearimohan, Pearmohan's son was Bharat Chandra. The appellant is the son of Bharat Chandra. 4. The expression 'sapinda relationship' and degrees of prohibited relationship' in clauses (iv) and (V) of S. 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are to be interpreted according to the definition given in sub-clauses (f) and (g) of S. 3 of the said Act and it is not longer permissible to import the concepts of 'sapinda' and 'prohibited relationship' according to the text and the rules of Hindu Law which under S. 4(a) of the Act have ceased to have effect with respect to the matters for which provision has been made in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. 5. Sapinda relationship under S. 3(f)(i) of the Act with reference to any person extends as far as the third generation (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the mother, and the fifth (inclusive) in the line of ascent through the father, the line being upwards in each case from the person concerned, who is to be counted as the first generation. Under sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) of S. 3 of the Act when parties have a common ascendant, sapinda relationship has to be traced with reference to each of them. 6. According to the appellant. Rajnarayan was the common ancestor of the two parties. Anima traced her descent from Rajnarayan through her mother Nandarani. Therefore, with reference to other lineal descendants of Rajnarayan, Anima's sapinda relationship extended up to the third generation, i. e, up to Gajendra. 7. Further, sub-clause (ii) of clause (f) of S. 3 of the Act, enjoins that the common lineal ascendant must be within the limits of sapinda relationship with reference to each of them, i. e both the parties to marriage. Therefore it is immaterial that Sudarsan, who was related wholly through males was in the fifth line of descent from Rajnarayan. We also hold that the relationship between the parties was also not specified in any of the sub-clauses of clause (g) of S. 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly they were not within the prohibited relationship to each other. We also hold that the relationship between the parties was also not specified in any of the sub-clauses of clause (g) of S. 3 of the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly they were not within the prohibited relationship to each other. Therefore, the marriage between the parties was not in contravention of the clauses (IV) and (v) of S.5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The marriage of the parties was neither void under S. 11 nor voidable under S.12 of the Hindu Marriage Act. 8. The court below had also disbelieved that the appellant's consent to the marriage was obtained by force or coercion. The learned Advocate for the appellant has not also disputed the correctness of the said finding. 9. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal. There will be no order as to costs, 10. The application is disposed of without any order as to costs. Sharma, J : I agree. Appeal dismissed.