JUDGMENT M Srinivasan, C J.—"The case of the appellant who was plaintiff in the trial Court was that the suit property belonged to his father Hari Singh and on his death somewhere in the year 1956, a mutation was entered in favour of his three sons, namely, the plaintiff, second defendant Ishwar Singh and another brother Tulsi Ram According to the plaintiff, that Tulsi Ram was not heard of from 1950. The first defendant in the suit who is first respondent before us is admittedly wife of Tulsi Ram. The plaintiff stated that she had remarried the second defendant in the form of Jhanjrara marriage and she had also be got three children for him Ft is also stated in the plaint that the first defendant was guilty of unchastity and therefore she lost her right to succeed to the property of her husband under the customary law which prevailed in that area before the passing of Hindu Succession Act On that footing, the plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the first defendant on account of her remarriage with the second defendant and account of her unchastity giving birth to three children for the second defendant ceased to have any right, title or interest in the suit property. 2 The defendants contested the suit The first defendant raised the contention that there was no marriage between her and second defendant and after her husbands whereabouts were not known she was living with the second defendant who was the brother of her husband. She admits having borne three children for the second defendant, but according to her the Customary Law did not prevent her from succeeding ib the estate of her husband Tulsi Ram, whose whereabouts were not known from 1950 It is also stated by her that after the mutation entered in favour of three sons of Had Singh in the year 1956 there was a subsequent mutation in 1979 by which her name was included in the place of her husband Tulsi Ram Consequently it was contended that even under the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, she was entitled to succeed to her husbands estate 3. The trial Court while considering the question whether there was a marriage between the first defendant and the second defendant took a view that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove Jhanjrara form of marriage between the two defendants. The trial Court while considering the question whether there was a marriage between the first defendant and the second defendant took a view that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was not sufficient to prove Jhanjrara form of marriage between the two defendants. However, the trial Court proceeded to draw a presumption of marriage in view of long cohabitation of defendants and 2 from the year 1952. On the basis of such presumption the trial Court held that there was a marriage between the defendants 1 and 2, However, the trial Court proceeded to discuss the question of succession by referring to the Customary Law which prevailed previously in that area After setting out question No 47 in the "Customary Law of Kangra District excluding Kulu published by L. Middleton, Settlement Officer, Kangra District, the trial Court proceeded to hold that she had not lost her right to succeed to the property under the said law. The trial Court also placed reliance on the provisions of section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act and held that the Customary Law had been abrogated by the said Act. Consequently, the trial Court refused to accept the case of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. 4 On appeal, the learned District Judge placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab High Court in Mst. Sukho v, Balnant Singh, 1961 Punj LR 729, and held that even if the first defendant was guilty of unchastity she had not lost her right to succeed to the estate of Had Singh, her father-in-law as she continued to be in the house of her father-in-law having lived with another son of her father-in-law, namely, Ishwar Singh the second defendant The Appellate Court did not go into the question whether there was a marriage between the defendants 1 and 2 as alleged by the plaintiff Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the District Judge. 5 In this second appeal it is contended that there is ample evidence before the court to show that defendants No 1 and 2 had entered into Jhanjrara form of marriage and they were married. 5 In this second appeal it is contended that there is ample evidence before the court to show that defendants No 1 and 2 had entered into Jhanjrara form of marriage and they were married. According to the learned Counsel, remarriage between defendants No 1 and 2 would itself automatically deprive the first defendant of her right to succeed either to her husband Tulsi Ram or to her father-in law Hari Singh It is also the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that Tulsi Ram must be presumed to have died some where in the year 1950 since he was not heard of from that day. It is also contended that defendants No 1 and 2 must be presumed to have married in view of their long cohabitation. 6 None of the above contentions is acceptable Straightway, we can say that there can be no presumption in law as to the date of death of Tulsi Ram being somewhere in the year 1956 It is well settled proposition that though the court is entitled to presume the factum of death if a person concerned is not heard of for more than seven years, the court is not entitled to presume the date of death In this case the question had arisen before the court in the year 1980 when the suit was filed. Even assuming that the question prose earlier when the mutation was effected in favour of the first defendant by substituting her name in the place of her husband in the year 1979, even by then the Hindu Succession Act had come into force and therefore the provisions of the Act would apply 7. It is very clear from the provisions of section 4 that any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any customary usage as 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 that Act and the question whether a widow or a wife is entitled to succeed to the estate of husband is a matter governed by the Act. Hence, the Customary Law which prevailed before the passing of the Act cannot apply in this case. There is no provision in the Act which will deprive the first defendant from succeeding to the estate of her husband Tulsi Ram. Hence, the Customary Law which prevailed before the passing of the Act cannot apply in this case. There is no provision in the Act which will deprive the first defendant from succeeding to the estate of her husband Tulsi Ram. even if he is presumed to have died in 1979 or in 1956 when the mutation was effected in favour of Talsi Ram, plaintiff and second defendant But on the other hand, Tulsi Ram can be presumed to have been alive in 1956, as none of the brothers took any objection to the mutation being effected in his favour The mutation being and official act, a presumption arises under section 114 of the Evidence Act that it has been done in a proper manner. In view of the fact that brothers did not raise any objection for more than 23 years in such mutation, it is open o he court to proceed on the footing that Tulsi Ram was alive in the year 1956. If the is so, succession to his estate would arise only after 1956 when the Hindu Succession Act was passed. 8 There is no presumption that defendants 1 and 2 got married because they were living together for long. The trial Court is wrong in drawing such a presumption There is no evidence to prove the Jhanjrara form of marriage as observed by the trial Court itself. If there is no marriage between defendants 1 and 2, the first defendant can only be said to be guilty of unchastity. But under Hindu Succession Act, it is not a ground of disqualification ; nor is remarriage such a ground, 9. Even assuming that the Customary Law is applicable to the parties, the decision of the Punjab High Court in Mst Sukhos case, 1961 Punj LR 729, would apply even though on the facts of the case they had referred to succession to father-in-laws estate. The principle laid down therein is applicable to this case where the question relates to succession to husbands estate. A perusal of question 47 and answer given thereto as found in Customary Law of L Middleton, will show that a woman is not deprived of her right to succeed in case of unchastity if she continues to live in the same house. A perusal of question 47 and answer given thereto as found in Customary Law of L Middleton, will show that a woman is not deprived of her right to succeed in case of unchastity if she continues to live in the same house. In this case, she has continued to be living in the same family house as she is only living with another brother of her husband. 10 In the circumstances, the conclusions arrived at by the courts below, being unassailable, the second appeal fails and it is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs Appeal dismissed,