JUDGEMENT V.M. Jain, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Smt. Bachni plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.1993 passed by Addl. District Judge, Solan camp at Nalagarh, vide which the appeal filed by defendant No1 Smt Kalawati was accepted, the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1991 passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in its entirety. 2. The facts which are relevant for the decision of the present appeal are that Smt Bachni plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants, with the allegations that one Chuhra Ram was co-owner in joint possession to the extent of 3/4 share in the suit land and that said Chuhra Ram died intestate on 16.7.1980 leaving behind he plaintiff as the only legal heir, being the wife of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that the plaintiff was married to Chuhra Ram deceased and lived with him in his house as his legally wedded wife. It was alleged that later on due to some differences and stained relations between them, the plaintiff had been living at her-parental village for few years before the death of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that no child was born out of the said wedlock between the plaintiff and Chuhra Ram deceased and as such there was no other legal heir to succeed and inherit the estate left by Chuhra deceased, except the plaintiff being the wife of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that during his life time Chuhra Ram deceased had not married any other woman and even otherwise he could not have married any other woman during the subsistence of marriage between the plaintiff and Chuhra Ram deceased since there was no divorce between the plaintiff and Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that in case Chuhra Ram deceased was having illicit relations with any other woman during his life time. She could not have got the status of a legally wedded wife and any child born out of such illicit relations could not be termed as the legitimate child of Chuhra Ram deceased was would not be entitled to inherit the property left by Chuhra Ram deceased and would not be entitled to inherit the property left by Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 Smt. Kalawati was not the daughter of Chuhra Ram deceased, as mentioned in the revenue record and was not entitled to succeed to the estate left by Chuhra Ram deceased as such mutation No.22 sanctioned in her favour by the Assistant Collector, vide order dated 21.9.1980, ignoring the plaintiff, was illegal and void and in operative against the rights of the plaintiff qua the suit land. It was alleged that the said mutation was got sanctioned in favour of defendant No.1 in collusion with the revenue staff, even though it was known to every body that the plaintiff was legally wedded life of the Chuhra Ram deceased and was alive and was entitled to succeed to the property left by Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that the present revenue entries in favour of defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati were illegal and were liable to be ignored and similarly the sale of portion of the land, out of the share of Chuhra Ram deceased by defendant No.1 Kalawati in favour of proforma defendants, was also illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff had come to know about mutation No.22 and the wrong revenue entries in favour of defendant No. 1 only in September, 1986 and it was only then the cause of action arose to the plaintiff to file the present suit. It was accordingly prayed that the plaintiff be declared co-owner in joint possession by way of succession and inheritance of the 3/4th share in the total land as left by Chuhra Ram deceased, being the legally wedded life of Chuhra Ram deceased and mutation No.22 in respect of the said land sanctioned on 21.9.1980 in favour of defendant No. 1 be declared illegal and void and the sale of part of the suit land by defendant No.1 in favour of proforma defendants be also declared illegal and void and by way of consequential relief the defendants be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the joint possession over the suit land. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati by filing the written statement, taking up various preliminary objections, including the plea that the plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit land nor had any concern with the same. 3. The suit was contested by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati by filing the written statement, taking up various preliminary objections, including the plea that the plaintiff was neither in possession of the suit land nor had any concern with the same. It was alleged that infact the suit land was previously owned by Chuhra Ram, deceased, father of the answering defendant and on his death the same had rightly devolved upon the answering defendant, since Chuhra Ram deceased had no other heir except the answering defendant. It was denied that the plaintiff was ever married to Chuhra Ram deceased. On the other hand, it was pleaded that in fact the plaintiff was married to one Bogal and that Roop Ram, Ram Sarup, Phoola Ram (sons) and Smt. Krishna (daughter) were born to the plaintiff from the loins of said Bogal. It was alleged that the plaintiff had succeeded to the estate of said Bogal after his death in the year 1969, It was further alleged that Chuhra Ram deceased was married to Smt. Biro, mother of the answering defendant and the answering defendant was born out of the said wedlock. It was alleged that infact the plaintiff had no concern whatsoever with Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that the suit was barred by limitation. On merits, it was reiterated that the plaintiff had nothing to do with Chuhra Ram deceased and it was denied that the plaintiff was the wife of Chuhra Ram deceased On the other hand, it was pleaded that Smt. Biro, mother of the answering defendant, was married to Chuhra Ram deceased and the answering defendant being the daughter of Chuhra Ram deceased was the sole surviving heir of Chuhra Ram deceased and had rightly succeeded to the state of Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that in fact the plaintiff was the widow of Bogal and had been living with him as his wife and three sons and a daughter were born out of the said wedlock. It was alleged that the marriage of Chuhra Ram deceased had taken place with Smt. Biro, mother of the answering defendant and that said Smt. Biro had died within few days of the birth of the answering defendant and that the answering defendant was the sole legal heir of Chuhra Ram deceased, whereas the plaintiff had no concern with Chuhra Ram deceased. It was further alleged that infact the plaintiff was the sister of Smt. Biro (mother of defendant No. 1) and she had evil eyes upon the estate of Chuhra Ram deceased and she concocted a false story regarding her marriage with Chuhra Ram deceased. It was alleged that the plaintiff had filed the present suit in order to grab the property left by Chuha Ram deceased. Other allegations contained in the plaint were also controverted and it was prayed that the suit be dismissed. 4. A separate written statement was filed by proforma defendants No.4 to 10. The plaintiff filed replication, alleging therein that the plaintiff was the only legal heir of Chuhra Ram deceased. However, it was admitted that the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. It was alleged that the mutation of the property of Chuhra Ram deceased had wrongly been sanctioned in the same of Smt. Kalawati defendant and even the revenue entries were wrong. It was alleged that infact the plaintiff was the only legal heir to succeed to the estate of Chuhra Ram deceased. 5. On the pleadings of the parties various issues were framed and the case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence. The case was at the stage of plaintiffs evidence when the plaintiff filed application dated 17.11.1987 under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, seeking permission to amend the plaint. In this application it was alleged that the name of the husband of the plaintiff is to be corrected as Bararu instead of Chuhra Ram in the heading of the plaint, whereas in para 1 of the plaint the name of Chuhra Ram is to be substituted by the name of Bararu. It was further alleged that infact Bararu and Chuhra Ram were co-shares being collaterals of the previous Khata. Similarly, in para 2 of the plaint the name of Chuhra Ram was to be substituted by the name of Bararu and it was to be read that the plaintiff was married to Bararu and not Chuhra Ram and wherever the name of Chuhra Ram is mentioned as the husband of the plaintiff, the same is to be substituted by Bararu being the husband of the plaintiff. It was further alleged that paras 1 to 4 of the plaint were also required to be amended to the extent that the plaintiff was married to Bararu and not Chuhra Ram and she was entitled to succeed to the share of Bararu deceased in the joint Khata being collateral along with the Chuhra Ram. It was alleged that the said amendment would not change the nature of the suit and the mistake in the name had occurred due to bonafide mistake and was caused due to forgetfulness at the time of drafting the plaint and seeking instructions from the plaintiff. The learned trial Court vide order dated 17.11.1987 allowed the said application of the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint. The amended plaint was taken on record and the case was adjourned for filing written statement to the amended plaint. On the adjourned date, time was sought by the counsel for defendant No.1 for filing written statement to the amended plaint and the case was adjourned to 14.12.1987, being the last opportunity. On 14.12.1987 written statement to the amended plaint was not filed. On the other hand, in the Zimni order dated 14.12.1987 passed by the trial Court it had been recorded that the counsel for defendant No.1 had stated at the Bar that the written statement already filed be read as the written statement to the amended plaint. Thus, the trial court found that neither any replication was to be filed nor any fresh issue had arisen. Thus, the case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective contentions, on the issues already framed. 6. The learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.1991, after hearing both sides and perusing record, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case qua the estate of Chuhra Ram deceased, which was rightly mutated in favour of his daughter Smt. Kalawati (defendant No.1). However, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim the share of her husband Bararu and as such she was held to be joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of V2 share of Bararu deceased. However, it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim the share of her husband Bararu and as such she was held to be joint owner in possession of the suit land to the extent of V2 share of Bararu deceased. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was partly decreed to the effect that she was declared to be co-owner in joint possession by way of succession to the estate of her deceased husband Bararu to the extent of his share (1/2 share) in the suit land alongwith the defendants and mutation No.22 dated 21.9.1980 was declared null and void and similarly revenue entries contrary to the interest of the plaintiff in the suit land were also declared null and void. It was further held that the sales affected by Chuhra Ram in favour of proforma defendants No.4 to 11 were also illegal and void to the extent of the share of Bararu deceased, holding that these defendants had failed to prove the plea of bonafide purchasers. The defendants were also restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from the property jointly, owned and possessed by her and were also restrained from claiming the exclusive ownership and possession over the suit land. 7. Aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati field an appeal. The learned Addl. District Judge, after hearing both sides and perusing the record, accepted the said appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff Smt. Bachni in its entirety, holding that Bararu, husband of the plaintiff, had died around the year 1940 and soon after his death and any case before the coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 the plaintiff had remarried one Bogal and thereupon she had forfeited her rights to remain in possession of the suit property which she had inherited from Braru, vide judgment and decree dated 14.6.1993. Aggrieved against the same, Smt. Bachni plaintiff filed the present regular second appeal in this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant at the outset submitted before me that in the present regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff, the dispute is in respect of the property left by Braru deceased. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant at the outset submitted before me that in the present regular second appeal filed by the plaintiff, the dispute is in respect of the property left by Braru deceased. It has been submitted that so far as the share of Chuhra Ram deceased is concerned, the plaintiff was declined relief in respect thereof by the trial Court while decreeing the suit and the suit was decreed by the trial court only in respect of % share of Braru deceased in the suit land and feeling aggrieved against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court (declining relief regarding the share of Chuhra Ram deceased), the plaintiff had not filed any appeal before the District Judge. On the other hand, the appeal was filed by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati and the said appeal was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed in its entirety. 9. In view of the above, this Court is now required to consider as to whether the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to inherit and retain the property left by Braru deceased. As per the amended plaint filed by Smt. Bachni plaintiff, she was the widow of Braru deceased and on the death of Braru, she was entitled to inherit the property left by Braru deceased. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, Smt. Kalawati, to the original plaint and which was ordered to be read as the written statement to the amended plaint, the specific plea taken by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati was that in fact Smt. Bachni was the widow of one Bogal and was living with him as him as his wife and that she had given birth to three sons, namely, Roop Ram, Ram, Sarup and Phoola Ram and one daughter namely Smt. Krishna from the loins of said Bogal. It was also alleged that Smt. Bachni had succeeded to the estate of said Bogal after his death in the year 1969. In the replication filed by the plaintiff to the said written statement, it was admitted that the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. It was also alleged that Smt. Bachni had succeeded to the estate of said Bogal after his death in the year 1969. In the replication filed by the plaintiff to the said written statement, it was admitted that the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. There was no specific denial in the replication to the allegations that she as married to Bogal and she was living with him as his wife nor it was denied that the aforesaid three sons and one daughter were born to her from the loins of said Bogal. It was also not denied that she had succeeded to the estate of Bogal after his death in the year 1969. In the absence of specific denial in the replication to these allegations made by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati in the written statement it shall be presumed that these allegations have been admitted by the plaintiff. Admittedly, Smt. Bachni plaintiff was previously married to Braru deceased. It was only subsequently that she had married Bogal, from whose loins she had given birth to three sons and one daughter and after the death of Bogal in the year 1969, she had inherited the property left by Bogal. 10. In view of the above, the question that comes up for consideration is as to when Braru deceased had died and when Smt. Bachni plaintiff had married to Bogal, since deceased. As referred to above, in the plaint it had not been specifically pleaded by the plaintiff as to when Braru had died. Similarly, it had not been specifically pleaded by defendant No.1 in the written statement as to when Smt. Bachni plaintiff had married Bogal. However, from the evidence available on the record these facts not only stand fully proved but infact not disputed before me during the course of arguments. Ext.P3 is the copy of mutation No.6 which was entered on 8.1.1997 and was sanctioned on 3.2.1999. It has not been disputed before me by the learned counsel appearing for either side that these dates are infact Bikrami dates. Thus, the aforesaid mutation was entered on 8.1.1997 B.K. and was sanctioned on 3.9.1999 B.K. The difference between Bikrami year and the year as per English calendar is 57 years, as admitted before me by the learned counsel for the parties. Thus, the aforesaid mutation was entered on 8.1.1997 B.K. and was sanctioned on 3.9.1999 B.K. The difference between Bikrami year and the year as per English calendar is 57 years, as admitted before me by the learned counsel for the parties. In the said mutation it was entered in the remarks column that during the Girdaswari Rabi 1997 it transpired that Braru had died on 14.12.1996 and his widow was in possession of the said land. As referred to above, the mutation was entered on 8.1.1997. Subsequently, the said mutation was sanctioned by the Tehsildar to the effect that it was verified from the general public that Braru had died issueless and that he was succeeded by his widow Smt. Bachni. Accordingly, the mutation was sanctioned from Braru deceased in favour of his widow Smt. Bachni. Thus, from the said mutation copy Ext. P3 it would be dear that Braru deceased had died on 14.12.1996 i.e. sometime in the year 1939 (1996 minus 57) and mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his widow Smt. Bachni some time in the year 1942 (1999 minus 57). 11. In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence available on the record and produced by the plaintiff Smt. Bachni herself, it stands fully proved on the record that Smt. Bachni was married to Braru and that said Braru had died sometime in the year 1939 and mutation was entered in favour of his widow and thereafter some time in the year 1942 and the said mutation copy Ext.P3 was sanctioned in favour of his widow Smt. Bachni plaintiff. 12. The next question that comes up for consideration is as to whether Smt.Bachni plaintiff had remarried Bogal and if so when. As referred to above, in the plaint Smt.Bachni had nowhere alleged that after death of Braru she had remarried Bogal. However, defendant No.1 Kalawati in the written statement had specifically alleged that Smt. Bachni was married to Bogal and was living with him as his wise and that she had given birth to three sons and one daughter from the loins of Bogal and that on the death of Bogal in the year 1969. Smt. Bachni plaintiff had inherited the estate left by Bogal deceased. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, none of these allegations were specifically denied by the plaintiff. Smt. Bachni plaintiff had inherited the estate left by Bogal deceased. In the replication filed by the plaintiff, none of these allegations were specifically denied by the plaintiff. On the other hand, it was admitted by the plaintiff that she had three sons and one daughter. The aforesaid allegations having not been specifically denied by the plaintiff in the replication. In my opinion, would be deny those allegations if these were false allegations made by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati in the written statement Smt. Bachni plaintiff having failed to do so, in my opinion, it shall be presumed that the aforesaid allegations made by defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati in the written statement was admitted by Smt. Bachni plaintiff as correct. 13. From the above it would be clear that after the death of her husband Braru sometime in the year 1939-40 Smt.Bachni plaintiff had remarried Bogal and had been living with him as his wife and had given birth to three sons and one daughter from the loins of said Bogal and on the death of Bogal in the year 1969 she had inherited the property left by Bogal. The next question that comes up for consideration is as to when Smt. Bachni plaintiff had remarried Bogal. Ext.D-3 is the copy of mutation No. 7 vide which the share of Smt. Bachni plaintiff being widow of Braru was mutated in favour of other heirs of Braru deceased. This mutation was entered by the Patwari to the effect that Smt. Bachni widow of Braru had already contracted Karewa marriage with Bogal about 4 years back and that the property which was inherited by her from her husband be mutated in favour of Chuhra etc. The said mutation was sanctioned by Tehsildar on 20.9.2005 (B.K.) If it is converted to the English calendar, it would come to the year 1948 (2005 minus 57). While sanctioning the said mutation it was noticed by the Tehsildar that the statement of Bogal, husband of Smt.Bachni plaintiff, had already been recorded to the effect that Smt.Bachni was residing with him in his house for the last eight years and that two children had already been born. It was also noticed that the public present at the time of sanctioning of the mutation had also admitted this fact. It was also noticed that the public present at the time of sanctioning of the mutation had also admitted this fact. Accordingly, the said mutation was sanctioned vide which the land inherited by Smt.Bachni from her previous husband Braru was mutated, in favour of other heirs of Braru deceased. 14. From the aforesaid mutation copy Ext.D-3 available on the record if would be clear that by the time the said mutation was sanctioned some time in the year 1948, Smt.Bachni plaintiff had already remarried Bogal by way of Karewa marriage. Thus, it would be clear that the marriage of Smt. Bachni plaintiff with Bogal had taken place prior to the year 1948. 15. The next question that comes up for consideration is as to whether Smt. Bachni plaintiff having inherited the property from her husband Braru on his death sometime in the year 1939-40 would forfeit her rights in the said property on her remarriage with Bogal prior to the year 1948. Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Re-i marriage Act, 1856 reads as under:- 2. Rights of widow in deceased husbands property to cease on her remarriage. All rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husbands property by way of maintenance, or by inheritance to her husband or to his lineal successors, or by virtue of any will or testamentary disposition conferring upon her, without express permission to re-marry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienating the same, shall upon her re-marriage cease and determine as if she had then died; and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same." 16. The aforesaid Hindu Widows Re-marriage Act, 1856 was very much operative at the time when Smt. Bachni plaintiff had remarried Bogal prior to 1948. The aforesaid Hindu Widows Re-marriage Act, 1856 was very much operative at the time when Smt. Bachni plaintiff had remarried Bogal prior to 1948. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 2 of the said Act and considering that Smt. Bachni had remarried Bogal prior to the year 1948, in my opinion, Smt. Bachni plaintiff had ceased to have any right or interest in the property which was inherited by her from her previous husband namely, Braru deceased, on her remarriage with Bogal and the property which was inherited by her from Braru deceased was required to be mutated in favour of next heirs of Braru deceased or other persons entitled to the property on her death, considering by fiction of law that Smt. Bachni plaintiff had died upon her re-marriage with Bogal. Keeping in view the provisions of section 2 of the aforesaid Act, the aforesaid mutation copy Ext.D3 with rightly sanctioned considering that Smt. Bachni had contracted re-marriage with Bogal by way of Karewa marriage. 17. As referred to above, the fact that Smt. Bachni plaintiff had remarried Bogal and had been living with him as his wife and had given birth to three sons and one daughter from his loins and that she had inherited the property left by Bogal deceased on his death in the year 1969, having not bee specifically denied by the plaintiff in the replication even though all these allegations were specifically made by defendant No. 1 in the written statement shall be deemed to have been admitted by her. Furthermore, from the jamabandi copy Ext.D-2 it stands fully proved on the record that Smt. Bachni was recorded therein as widow of Bogal having 1/3th share along with three sons and one daughter of Bogal deceased. This would corroborate the allegations of defendant No. 1 Smt. Kalawati in the written statement that Smt. Bachni, as widow of Bogal, had inherited the property left by Bogal on his death. Furthermore, Ext.DW-4/A is the copy of the family register (Parivar Register) showing Bogal as head of the family and Smt.Bachni as his widow having been born in the year 1926 and three sons and one daughter of Bogal having been born in the years 1945, 1951, 1962 and 1960, respectively. Furthermore, Ext.DW-4/A is the copy of the family register (Parivar Register) showing Bogal as head of the family and Smt.Bachni as his widow having been born in the year 1926 and three sons and one daughter of Bogal having been born in the years 1945, 1951, 1962 and 1960, respectively. This document would also show that Smt. Bachni plaintiff was recorded as the wife of Bogal in the family register, and that Bogal had three sons and a daughter. The fact that Smt. Bachni had given birth to three sons and a daughter from the loins of Bogal was not disputed by the plaintiff in the replication and it was admitted that she had three sons and a daughter. The oral testimony of DW-4 Vasu Dev, Pradhan Panchayat Badian, who had proved the said entries Ext.DW4/A of the family register, would also prove that if is the same Smt.Bachno who is the plaintiff in this case and quo whom the said entries had been made in the family register. In the witness box it was specifically stated by DW-4 Vasu Devi that in the said register it was recorded that Smt. Bachni was the wife of Bogal. It was further stated by him that he knew Smt. Bachni etc. and that said Smt. Bachni was present in the Court. DW-3 Lekh Ram he also supported the case of defendant No.1 in this regard. He categorically stated that Smt. Bachni was residing in the village and that she had given birth to three sons and a daughter from the loins of Bogal and that Bogal had since expired and his property had been inherited by Smt. Bachni and the children. During cross-examination on behalf of plaintiff he stated that Smt. Bachni was previously married to Braru. 18. As referred to above, Smt. Bachni plaintiff having inherited the property left by her previous husband Braru deceased, all rights and interest of Smt. Bachni in the said property had ceased to exist on her remarriage to Bogal prior to the year 1948, by virtue of the provision of Section 2 of the Hindu Widows Re-marriage Act, 1856, referred to above. This is especially so when it is not the case of the plaintiff that her re-marriage to Bogal was with the express permission to remarry, as provided under section 2 of the aforesaid Act. This is especially so when it is not the case of the plaintiff that her re-marriage to Bogal was with the express permission to remarry, as provided under section 2 of the aforesaid Act. Reference in this regard may be made to the law laid down by a Full Bench of Bombay High Court, in the case Vithu V. Govinda, 22 Bombay 321 (FIB). 19. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion it would be clear that the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly justified in accepting the appeal of defendant No.1 Smt. Kalawati and dismissing the suit of Smt. Bachni in its entirety, holding that on the death of Braru deceased sometime in the year 1940, Smt. Bachni plaintiff having remarried Bogal prior to the year 1946, by way of Karewa marriage, had forfeited her right in the suit property and that Smt. Bachni plaintiff had not right whatsoever in the suit property. These findings were given by the learned Additional District Judge after considering the entire evidence available on the record, including oral and documentary evidence. I have also gone through the entire evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel and the evidence available on the record clearly shows that on the death of her husband Braru deceased, sometime in the year 1940, Smt.Bachni plaintiff had remarried Bogal prior to the year 1948 and on the death of the Bogal in the year 1969, she along with her children had inherited the property left by Bogal and that after noticing that Smt. Bachni had re-married Bogal, the suit property (which she had inherited from Braru deceased) was mutated in favour of other heirs of Braru, divesting Smt.Bachni plaintiff of her rights in the suit property, keeping in view the provisions of Section 2 of the Hindu Widow?; RE-marriage Act, 1856. I am further of the opinion that the learned Addl. District Judge had rightly accepted the appeal filed by Smt. Kalawati defendant No.1 and had rightly dismissed the suit of the Smt. Bachni plaintiff in its entirety and no fault could be found with the same. 20. The present regular second appeal was admitted to a regular hearing vide order dated 14.1.1994, on substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 as framed and attached with the grounds of appeal. 20. The present regular second appeal was admitted to a regular hearing vide order dated 14.1.1994, on substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 as framed and attached with the grounds of appeal. The first substantial question of law framed was as to whether the lower appellate Court was right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled to succeed to the estate of Braru on account of the appellant having remarried before the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act and the second question of law which was framed was s to whether the lower appellate Court had misread and misinterpreted the documents Ext.P-2 (mutation) and Ex.D3 (mutation) 21. So far as firs substantial question of law framed in this case is concerned, I have already found above that keeping in view the fact that Smt. Bachni plaintiff had re-married Bogal prior to the year 1948, had ceased to have any right or interest in the suit property, by virtue of the Hindu Widows Re-marriage Act, 1856. j That being so, the first substantial question of law framed in this case is decided against the plaintiff. So far as the second substantial question of law is concerned, the same pertains to mutation copy Ex.P2 and the other mutation copy Ex.D-3. So far the mutation copy Ex.D-3 is concerned, in my opinion, the same has rightly been read and interpreted by the learned Additional District Judge and no fault could be found with the same. So far as mutation copy Ex P2 is concerned, the same pertains to the land, which was owned by Chuhra Ram deceased, having been mutated in favour of his daughter Smt. Kalawati defendant No.1 on the death of Chuhra Ram deceased. This mutation was entered on 14.8.1380 and was sanctioned on 21.9.1980. So far as Smt. Kalawati defendant No.1 being the daughter of Chuhra Ram deceased is concerned, there is no dispute about it and as such the land, which was entered on 14.8.1980 and was sanctioned on 21.9.1980. So far as the Smt. Kalawati defendant No.1 being the daughter of Chuhra Ram deceased is concerned, there is no dispute about it and as such the land, which was entered in the name of Chuhra Ram deceased during his life time was rightly mutated in favour of his daughter Smt.Kalawati on his death. So far as the Smt. Kalawati defendant No.1 being the daughter of Chuhra Ram deceased is concerned, there is no dispute about it and as such the land, which was entered in the name of Chuhra Ram deceased during his life time was rightly mutated in favour of his daughter Smt.Kalawati on his death. In this view of tine matter, in my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge had rightly read and interpreted even the mutation Ex.P-2 and no fault could be found with the same. Thus, even the second substantial question of law is decided against the plaintiff-appellant and in favour of defendant-respondent No. 1. 22. No other point has been urged before me in this appeal. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.