JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. – Heard argument of learned counsels for the parties and perused the records. 2. Original Suit No. 3/2004, Smt. Amravati v. Smt. Lalmani Devi & Others, was filed with averment that earlier owner of disputed house was Hajari Ram, after whose death his son Dwarika Sav became its owner. After death of Dwarika Sav, his wife (plaintiff) became owner of disputed house. Defendants have no concern with disputed house nor are they its tenant. They are trespasser in disputed portion of first floor of this house, and are in its occupation in unauthorised manner. In spite of notice of plaintiff, defendants had not vacated the disputed premises, so plaintiff had filed suit for their eviction. 3. In written statement, defendants denied the plaint averments and pleaded that their status in disputed house is that of tenant. They submitted that earlier owner of house was Hajari Ram, who had inducted Nem Chandra Bhandari in this house as tenant. After death of Nem Chandra Bhandari, his son Rajkumar Bhandari became tenant of said premises. Defendant no.-1 Lalmani Devi was earlier married to Shanker, and from that marriage one daughter defendant no.-3 was born. Later on, defendant's marriage with Shanker was annulled through mediation (Panchayat) and then she had married with Rajkumar Bhandari. Thus, after death of her husband Rajkumar Bhandari, defendants came in tenancy of first floor of house in question. They have deposited the rent of house in court. Plaintiff's suit is based on incorrect facts and liable to be dismissed. 4. Trial court had framed issues and accepted evidences of the parties. Both the parties had led evidences in support of their pleadings. It was admitted fact between the parties that Nem Chandra Bhandari and after his death Rajkumar Bhandari came in tenancy of disputed portion of house, but the dispute between the parties was as to whether defendant no.-1 Lalmani had been married with Rajkumar Bhandari and was his wife, and inherited the tenancy of disputed premises after his death. 5. After appreciating the evidences of the parties, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli had decreed the suit for eviction of defendants from disputed premises by its judgment dated 4.2.2010. 5. After appreciating the evidences of the parties, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandauli had decreed the suit for eviction of defendants from disputed premises by its judgment dated 4.2.2010. In this judgment, learned Civil Judge had given finding to the effect that at the time of death of Rajkumar Bhandari defendant no.-1 Smt. Lalmani Devi was employed at his house for cleaning utensils as servant. Trial court had specifically discussed the evidences and held that there is no evidence of dissolution of marriage of defendant no.-1 Smt. Lalmani Devi and her husband Shanker. The learned Civil Judge had disbelieved the alleged document of agreement of alleged marriage between Smt. Lalmani Devi and Rajkumar Bhandari dated 7.1.2003. After appreciation the evidences, trial court had held that from these evidences alleged second marriage of defendant no.-1 Smt. Lalmani Devi was performed in year 1976, but her alleged annulment of first marriage took place on 1.3.1978, thus pleading about annulment of marriage with Shankar or second marriage is not believable. Trial court had also discussed the pleading, in which it was no where mentioned that marriage of Smt. Lalmani Devi and Shanker was dissolved in accordance with any alleged customary manner. Trial court had also appreciated the evidences relating to voter list and found that even in recent time, and long after death of Rajkumar Bhandari, the name of Smt. Lalmani Devi is recorded as wife of Shanker and name of defendants no. 2 and 3 are also recorded as daughter and son of Shanker. Learned Civil Judge had given specific finding that neither marriage of Smt. Lalmani Devi and Shanker was ever dissolved nor she was ever married with Rajkumar Bhandari. Therefore, her status in disputed portion of house is not of a tenant but that of a trespasser. Trial court gave specific finding that defendant no.-1 Smt. Lalmani Devi was not legally married wife of Rajkumar Bhandari and her status in disputed property was of trespasser. With these findings the trial court had decreed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal No. 5/2010, Smt. Lalmani Devi & others v. Smt. Amravati, was preferred by defendants, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 18.9.2010 of District Judge, Chandauli. With these findings the trial court had decreed the suit. 6. Aggrieved by the judgment of trial court, Civil Appeal No. 5/2010, Smt. Lalmani Devi & others v. Smt. Amravati, was preferred by defendants, which was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 18.9.2010 of District Judge, Chandauli. In this judgment, first appellate court had framed points of determination regarding point of alleged tenant-landlord relationship of parties and on status of appellants as trespasser and thereafter gave its own independent finding against appellants and in favour of respondent. First appellate court had given specific finding that the alleged document of memorandum of marriage or the memorandum of dissolution of marriage was not proved and said documents are void. Lower appellate court had also held that it is not proved that marriage of Shanker and Smt. Lalmani Devi was ever dissolved. It was also held that fact of alleged marriage of Rajkumar Bhandari and Smt. Lalmani Devi was not proved. First appellate court had given specific finding that there had been no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and status of appellants in disputed property is that of a trespasser. With these findings, first appeal was dismissed. 7. Aggrieved by the judgments of trial court as well as first appellate court, the present second appeal was preferred by defendants of the original suit. At the time of admission of this appeal, following two substantial questions of law were framed: - (i) Whether Smt. Lalmani Devi, who was living with late Rajkumar Bhandari in the premises in dispute though not legally married to him can be treated to be his wife by virtue of her long association with him as husband and wife and is entitle to inherit tenancy rights in the property? (ii) Whether the plaintiff can succeed in a suit for eviction of the defendants from the suit premises without pleading the manner in which the defendants came in possession and occupied the same in as such as she cannot lead evidence beyond the pleadings in view of Order 6, Rule 2 C.P.C.? 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was documentary evidence of agreement of marriage between Rajkumar Bhandari and appellant no.-1 Smt. Lalmani Devi, which was erroneously disbelieved by lower courts. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that there was documentary evidence of agreement of marriage between Rajkumar Bhandari and appellant no.-1 Smt. Lalmani Devi, which was erroneously disbelieved by lower courts. He submitted that trial court had not given any finding about the rights of son of Smt. Lalmani Devi born with the relation of Rajkumar Bhandari. He contended that there has been long live-in relationship between defendant no.-1 Smt. Lalmani Devi and Rajkumar Bhandari as husband and wife, so they must be treated spouses. Therefore, judgments of lower courts are erroneous, which are based on improper appreciation of evidences. So appeal should be admitted for being allowed. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions of appellant side and submitted that neither marriages can be performed under Hindu Law on the basis of agreement deed nor can it be dissolved by personal agreement or conciliation. There is no proof that there had been any custom of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent in the society of Rajkumar Bhandari or Smt. Lalmani Devi. He pleaded that if evidences of defendant-appellants are accepted to be true, then in that case second marriage was performed earlier and first marriage was dissolved after two years of it. He further pointed out that according to plaint, one defendant was born out of marriage with Shanker and another defendant was born out of marriage with Rajkumar Bhandari, but in official records name of Shanker is noted as father of defendants no. 2 and 3, which disproved the plaint case. He further contended that dissolution of marriage of Smt. Amravati with Shanker is not proved, so she cannot be wife of Rajkumar Bhandari. He further contended that concurrent finding of lower courts are based on proper appreciation of evidences which cannot be interfered. Therefore, appeal should be dismissed. 10. The alleged marriage of Smt. Lalmani Devi with late Rajkumar Bhandari was the bone of contention between two parties in trial court and in first appellate court. A perusal of evidences adduced reveals that plaintiff had filed an agreement of marriage dated 7.1.2003 in trial court as proof of marriage. Therefore, appeal should be dismissed. 10. The alleged marriage of Smt. Lalmani Devi with late Rajkumar Bhandari was the bone of contention between two parties in trial court and in first appellate court. A perusal of evidences adduced reveals that plaintiff had filed an agreement of marriage dated 7.1.2003 in trial court as proof of marriage. This contention of learned counsel for the respondent is not unacceptable that had there been any intention of Rajkumar Bhandari to keep record and proof of his marriage with Smt. Lalmani Devi, then parties would have got registered their marriage in accordance with legal provisions in formal way. Lower courts have rightly held that this deed of agreement of marriage is a void document. 11. As discussed above, both the courts below had independently appreciated the evidences adduced by the parties on point of alleged marriage of Smt. Lalmani Devi with Rajkumar Bhandari and gave concurrent finding that this is not proved. Lower appellate court had specifically given finding that neither the marriage of Shanker and Smt. Lalmani Devi was ever dissolved nor Smt. Lalmani Devi was ever married with Rajkumar Bhandari. Both the lower courts have appreciated the evidences meticulously and gave specific findings that the status of defendant-appellants in disputed premises is not of tenant but is of a trespasser, who should be evicted. Any type of association, which is devoid of any matrimonial or conjugal relationship cannot create matrimonial rights in favour of the person living in live-in relationship. In present case, dissolution of marriage of Shanker and Smt. Lalmani Devi was never proved, as has been held by the concurrent and acceptable findings of the lower courts. Therefore, Smt. Lalmani Devi cannot acquire tenancy right in disputed house after death of Rajkumar Bhandari. On these points, acceptable and apparently correct findings of facts of trial court or lower appellate court cannot be interfered by re-appreciation of evidences in second appeal. Accordingly, first substantial question of law is decided in negative, against the appellants and in favour of respondent. 12. It is immaterial as to how the defendant-appellants came in possession of disputed property. If their status is that of a trespasser, they are liable to be evicted by true owner in accordance with procedure established by law. Accordingly, first substantial question of law is decided in negative, against the appellants and in favour of respondent. 12. It is immaterial as to how the defendant-appellants came in possession of disputed property. If their status is that of a trespasser, they are liable to be evicted by true owner in accordance with procedure established by law. This is admitted and proved fact that plaintiff-respondent is owner of the disputed house and defendant-appellants are neither tenant nor licensee but are trespasser, and they have not vacated the said premises in spite of notice given by plaintiff to them. It has been proved from evidences that all the contents of written-statement regarding alleged personal or tenancy right of defendants were not proved and their status in disputed portion of house is proved as of a trespasser. Therefore the plaintiff-respondent, who has right to acquire possession of disputed property of his ownership, has right to regain its possession. So there is no error or illegality when plaintiff's suit was decreed for eviction of defendant-appellants without describing the history of manner of possession acquired by defendants. Accordingly, second point of determination is decided in affirmative, in favour of plaintiff-respondent and against the defendant-appellants. 13. On the basis of above discussion, it is found that there is no error, infirmity, perversity or illegality in judgment of the trial court or first appellate court. The findings of both the courts below are found correct ,and are hereby confirmed. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.