JUDGMENT A.U. Khan, Member. - The facts are : On 16-8-1984 Om Prakash and Sham Singh instituted this declaratory law suit under Section 229-B Z.A. and L.R. Act in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Bijnor. The pleading has set forth the contention that tenure holder was Prem who died 10 years ago as a minor. On his death his real brother Bharta succeeds under Section 171 Z.A. and L.R. Act and came in possession. On 18-8-1981. Bharta has executed a sale deed of his bhumidhari tenure. His title has passed and they are bhumidhar tenant in possession. But on a different plea Smt. Sukhia, D/3 moved for mutation of her name which was allowed on 25.11.1981. It is claimed that widowed mother Smt. Sukhia could not succeed as she had contracted a second Karao marriage. On entry of her name Smt. Sukhia has executed a sale-deed in favour of Jagram Singh D/1 on 24-2-1992. Jagram Singh moves for mutation of his name and proceeding is going apace. The relief to them bhumidhar tenant in possession has been prayed for. 2. The suit is resisted by D/1 who filed his written statement on 10-10-1984. The pleading is of denial of plaint allegations. The case set forth in that on death of last bhumidhar tenant Prem, his successor is widowed mother Smt. Sukhia, wife of Phattan. That she has never-remarried with Bhure and allegations to the contrary are incorrect. His claim is that he is now bhumidhar tenant in possession by the virtue of sale deed dated 24-2-1982 executed by Smt. Sukhia. Also plaintiffs have got second sale-deed executed by Smt. Sukhia on 29-3-1982 because his first sale-deed by vendor Bharta did not transfer any land. The sale-deed dated 18-8-1981 confers no bhumidhari rights on plaintiffs. 3. On pleading of the parties issues were formulated on 7-12-1984. Parties have been given chance to lead their evidence, they have made their representation. On 23-11-1985 Assistant Collector First Class enters an order decreeing the suit of Om Prakash. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree defendant Jagram Singh D/1 filed an appeal in Commissioner's. On 3-2-1987 Additional Commissioner enters an order dismissing the appeal. So this second appeal by contesting defendant Jagram Singh. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The pedigree explains relationship. The pedigree is not in content. Aggrieved by this judgment and decree defendant Jagram Singh D/1 filed an appeal in Commissioner's. On 3-2-1987 Additional Commissioner enters an order dismissing the appeal. So this second appeal by contesting defendant Jagram Singh. 4. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. The pedigree explains relationship. The pedigree is not in content. On death of last male tenant Prem, his widowed mother shall succeed under section 171(b) Z.A. and L.R. Act. The case of plaintiff/respondent Om Prakash's is that Smt. Sukhia has remarried with Bhure, so she has been divested of her tenurial rights. Is this true ? Whether Smt. Sukhia has re-married before 18-8-1981? In the pleadings Om Prakash's have not set forth when Smt. Sukhia has re-married. Say, she has re-married but after 18-8-1981, then no rights will pass by sale-deed executed by Bharta. The primary enquiry is, whether Smt. Sukhia has remarried after the death of Phattan with Bhure and at what material time. The evidence on record conclusively establishes that Smt. Sukhia has never re-married. This is evident from several circumstances summarised below: (i) Plaintiff Om Prakash move mutation application under Section 34 Land Revenue Act in Tahsildar's. On 29-3-1983 they have confessed that Smt. Sukhia wife of Phattan. If Smt. Sukhai has re-married with Bhure, why describe her as widow of Phattan. (ii) Smt. Sukhia has taken a loan from Bank on 25-5-1985 a sum of Rs. 8,500.00. In the document she has confessed that she is widow of Phattan. What is more is that she is identified here by no other than by Om Prakash plaintiff. (iii) In the mutation case arising soon after death of Prem, she has filed an affidavit admitting that she is widow of Smt. Sukhia. (iv) On 29-3-1982 plaintiffs have got a second sale-deed executed by Smt. Sukhia of this land. Smt. Sukhia has already transferred her interest in land to defendant Jagram Singh on 24-2-1982. What is material is that second sale-deed by Smt. Sukhia is open confession of non-transfer of title of the first sale-dated 18-8-1981 by Bharta. 5. It appears, form the record that Smt. Sukhia is a woman who has adopted different positions to gain cheap advantage. Her name was mutated as widowed mother. She executed one sale-deed of this tenure favouring Jagram Singh D/1 on 24-2-1982. 5. It appears, form the record that Smt. Sukhia is a woman who has adopted different positions to gain cheap advantage. Her name was mutated as widowed mother. She executed one sale-deed of this tenure favouring Jagram Singh D/1 on 24-2-1982. She was then won over and then she executed a second sale-deed frivolous enough favouring Om Prakash on 29-3-1982. This conduct finds reflection in her oral evidence. She is a 'Charmari' by caste. Also of easy virtue. According to sworn testimony of Cheta D/2 she was living in adulterous relation with Bhure even during the life time of Phattan No. Karoa marriage has taken place. She confessed that Bhure has kept her. She was agreeably living with him but in sin. It is this reason that she has always described herself a widow of Phattan. She had two children by her deceased husband Phattan. The courts below have not considered the matter in proper perspective. It is important that plaintiffs have no where pleaded that Smt. Sukhia has remarried before material sale-deed dated 18-8-1981. In evidence there has been no sustained effort to show that remarriage has taken place before this date. 6. On a consideration of foregoing discussions, the appeal succeeds. The second appeal is allowed orders of courts below are set aside. The suit of plaintiff Om Prakash is dismissed.