( 1 ) 1. This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16-11-1988 passed in Original Suit No, 66/1986 on the file of the Civil Judge, Tiptur. In the course of this Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the Trial Court, ( 2 ) THE respondent brought the suit for partition interalia on the plea that she was the wife of defendant's son Basavaraju, since deceased. . Therefore, in the properties, which were absolute prgperties belonging to the defendant and said basavaraju her deceased husband, she was entitled to succeed to the interest of her husband in the properties. The suit was resisted by defendant interalia contending that Basavaraju was his son and his mother was an immoral woman went away from the house voluntarily and began to live in the hous. e of her father. They had never come back to live with him. He did not know anything about the solemnisation of the marriage of the plaintiff with his son and she was not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, her suit was liable to be dismissed. ( 3 ) ON such pleadings, the Court framed as many as four issues, which are as follows : - (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is the wife of defendant's son basavsraju ? (2) If so, whether she is entitled for 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties? (3) Whether the suit is barred by time? (4) What order or decree ? ( 4 ) PLAINTIFF examined 4 witnesses including herself and got marked 3 documents in support of her case. Defendant examined himself as D. W. 1 and got marked 6 documents in support of his case. On considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Civil judge, Tiptgr has come to the conclusion, the plaintiff had established her case by discharging the burden cast upon her by issues 1 and 2, therefore decreed the suit as prayed for. ( 5 ) IT is in these circumstances, the present appeal is filed before us. It is contended by Sri. ( 5 ) IT is in these circumstances, the present appeal is filed before us. It is contended by Sri. Rangaraj learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned trial judge erred in coming to the conclusion that in the absence of Sapthapadi, which was admittedly not performed at the wedding ceremony, as stated by plaintiff's own witness, the marriage was unlawful and therefore, plaintiff Shivamma could not be the legitimate wife of deceased Basavaraju son of the defendant. The argument is founded on the evidence of p. W. 3, who appears to have officiated over the, religious ceremonies of the marriage as the Priest. He has spoken to the fact that though in the Veerashaiva community, there is the custom of observing sapthapadi, in the group of villages where he was officiating at the marriages, the custom had been given up and Sapthapadi was not performed and therefore, he did not perform the Sapthapadi for the wedding of deceased basavaraju and plaintiff shivamma. Undoubtedly persons belonging to veerashaiva Community are Hindus as defined by the Act Section 7 of the hindu Marriage Act provides for the manner in which any marriage is required to be performed to constitute a valid marriage. It is as follows : -7. (1) "a Hindu marriage may be solemnised in accordance with the customary rites, and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremome include the Sapthapadi (that is, the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh step is taken. " ( 6 ) IN whatever manner Sub-section (2) of Section-7 is looked at, It is obvious that Sapthapadi is hot an essential part of the rites for the performance of a marrlage so'emnising the union between two persons who are Hindus. All that sub-section (2) states, is marriage becomes complete where Sapthapadi is part of the rites of the solemnisation of the marriage. If it is not part of the rites marriage is template even without Sapthapadi. In other words the marriage could be rendered void before the seventh step is taken where it is proved that sapthapadi was part of the rites and that those seven steps were not Completed. It cannot be interpreted as essential pre-requisite for a valid Hindu marriage. If it is not part of the rites marriage is template even without Sapthapadi. In other words the marriage could be rendered void before the seventh step is taken where it is proved that sapthapadi was part of the rites and that those seven steps were not Completed. It cannot be interpreted as essential pre-requisite for a valid Hindu marriage. Such a construction would result in giving content to sub-section (2) of Section-7, more than the legislature intended. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, as long as tha plaintiff established that she was married to basavaraju by the cogent evidence of the witnesses who have seen the marriage and who have performed the marriage and it is proved by production of invitation of the marriage, Exh. P1, the validity of the marriage cannot be challenged. Therefore, we should agree with the findings recorded by the trial court that the plaintiff had discharged the burden that she had married deceased Basavaraju son of the defendant. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise the defendant did not lead any evidence disproving the factum of marriage, besides his denial on oath that he was not aware of the solemnisation of the marriage. That is a denial which suits his purpose. Therefore, we should not give any undue importance to the denial. We also derive force to sustain the finding of the trial court in regard to the validity ot the marriage and the same is evidenced by Exh. P1, the marriage invitation. Marriage of not only basavaraju but also of his sister was performed on the same dey with one Chandraiah who happens to be none other than the elder brother of Shivamma. ( 9 ) NOW that marriage has not been denied either in the pleadings or in the evidence led by the defendant. Therefore, there is sufficient material for this Court to sustain the conclusion reached by the trial court on that question. ( 10 ) IT was next contended by Sri. Rangaraj that the Court below erred in awarding half share when defendant had taken a second wife and is having 3 daughters and a son. This fact is disclosed for the first time in this Court. In the written statement there is no mention of the defendant having taken a second wife and having any children, much less about children one of whom was entitled to a share in the joint family properties. This fact is disclosed for the first time in this Court. In the written statement there is no mention of the defendant having taken a second wife and having any children, much less about children one of whom was entitled to a share in the joint family properties. Evidence hinting that he has taken a second wife is the Votets List mentioning Sharadamma as the wife of defendant, it does not help the case of the defendant. If he has a son he ought to have been impleaded as a party with the defendant or a plea taken that the suit was bad for non joinder of parties. Not having done so, there is no force in the present argument, ( 11 ) THERE is no merit in this appeal. It is, therefore, rejected. Appeal rejected. --- *** --- .