JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant Regular Second Appeal stands directed by the defendant/appellant against the impugned rendition of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, H.P., whereby he dismissed the appeal of the defendant/appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and decree rendered by the learned Sub Judge, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., whereby the latter Court rendered a decree for declaration qua the plaintiff being owner of 1/3 share with a consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from changing the nature and character or user of the suit land. The defendant/appellant herein stands aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan. His standing aggrieved, he has therefrom preferred the instant appeal before this Court for seeking from this Court an order reversing the findings recorded therein. 2. The subject matter of the dispute is land comprised in Khewat\Khatauni Nos. 14/11/27 measuring 16 bighas 11 biswas and khewat/khatauni No. 15/12/28 measuring 37 bighas 11 biswas situate in village Sehlar, Pargana Dharampur, Pahar, Tehsil Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P. The case of the plaintiff is that Sh. Santu was father of the defendants. He was also father of Puran, husband of the plaintiff. Sh. Puran died during the life time of Santu and left behind plaintiff as his wife. The plaintiff remained in the house of the defendants and Santu used to cultivate the land in suit. Santu died and mutation No. 94 was sanctioned on 24.2.1996 in favour of the defendants to the exclusion of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the successor of Santu being widow of predeceased son and is entitled to succeed along with defendants to the estate of Santu to the extent of 1/3rd share in the land in suit. So, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that she was joint owner and joint possession of 1/3rd share in the suit land along with a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from ousting the plaintiff from joint occupation of the land in suit. The plaintiff in alternative prayed for grant of maintenance at the rate of 1000/- per month under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 3. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and averred that the deceased Santu had 7bighas 8biswas co-parcenary interest in the Joint Hindu Ancestral and Co-parcenary Property. The plaintiff in alternative prayed for grant of maintenance at the rate of 1000/- per month under the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 3. Defendant No.1 contested the suit and averred that the deceased Santu had 7bighas 8biswas co-parcenary interest in the Joint Hindu Ancestral and Co-parcenary Property. The plaintif was not widow of Puran and was not owner in possession of the land in suit to the extent of 1/3 rd share. The land has been inherited by the deceased Santu from his father Kishanoo. The co-parcenary interest/share of Santu devolved on the defendants No.1 and 2 being his Class-I heirs. Legal objections about the maintainability as the plaintiff was the wife of Sh. Sunder Defendant No.2, locus standi, limitation and estoppel as the plaintiff was residing in the house of Sunder for the last 35 years have been raised. 4. The plaintiff/respondent herein filed replication to the written statement of the defendant/appellant, wherein, he denied the contents of the written statement besides reaffirmed and re-asserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck following issues inter-se the parties in contest:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is widow of late Sh. Puran, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to inherit property of late Sh. Puran to the extent of 1/3rd share, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of injunction, as prayed for? OPP 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Whether this suit is barred by limitation? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit on account of act, conduct and acquiescence? OPD 8. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of the evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/appellant herein, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed his appeal. 7. Now the defendant/appellant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. In an appeal, preferred therefrom by the defendant/appellant herein, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed his appeal. 7. Now the defendant/appellant has instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court assailing the findings recorded by the learned First Appellate Court in its impugned judgment and decree. When the appeal came up for admission on 01.12.2004, this Court, admitted the appeal instituted by the defendant/appellant against the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned First Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial question of law:- 1. Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the learned trial Court as affirmed by the learned first Appellate Court is dehors the evidence on record and result of misreading of the evidence and against the settled position of law? Substantial question of Law No.1: 8. Santu, the predecessor-in-interest of Puran Chand, his predeceased son and of the defendants uncontrovertedly stood bestowed absolute dominion as owner of the suit land in sequel to the Pepsu Abolition of Ala Malkiat rights, he hitherto enjoyed upon the suit land. Santu expired on 28.3.1995. On his demise mutation qua his estate stood attested vis-a-vis the defendants besides obviously to the exclusion of the plaintiff despite hers throughout holding the status of a widow of Puran Chand, the predeceased son of Santu, the last male absolute owner of the suit property, whereupon she held a compatible legal right with them qua mutation of inheritance qua the estate of Santu also standing attested qua her. The suit wherein she claimed a declaratory decree qua hers holding entitlement to the extent of 1/3rd share along with the defendants/appellant stood decreed. An appeal carried therefrom by the aggrieved defendant, stood dismissed. 9. The defendant/appellant had foisted a ground for ousting the assertion of entitlement of the plaintiff/respondent herein qua hers holding an indefeasible right along with the defendants to the extent of 1/3rd share in the estate of Santu, the father of her predeceased husband Puran Chand, on the anchorage of the plaintiff not holding the status of a widow of their predeceased brother Puran Chand. Forthright categorical evidence stood adduced by the plaintiff qua hers throughout the life span of Puran Chand holding a relationship with him as his spouse also she proved qua hers on his demise not holding a re-marriage, evidence whereof stood corroborated by PW-2 and PW-3. The aforesaid factum also stands acquiesced by DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. Forthright categorical evidence stood adduced by the plaintiff qua hers throughout the life span of Puran Chand holding a relationship with him as his spouse also she proved qua hers on his demise not holding a re-marriage, evidence whereof stood corroborated by PW-2 and PW-3. The aforesaid factum also stands acquiesced by DW-1, DW-2 and DW-3. Cumulatively hence it stood unflinchingly proved of the plaintiff during the life time or life span of her predeceased husband, Puran Chand holding with him a relationship of his spouse also it is evident of hers on his demise remaining unmarried. 10. Be that as it may, defendant No.2, Sunder acquiesced in his cross-examination qua his at the time of demise of Puran Chand standing already married to one Kashmiro Devi besides his from his marriage with Kashmiro rearing children. Also he acquiesced in his cross-examination of his cohabiting with the plaintif, in sequel, whereof she reared children from his loins. However, the matrimony of defendant No.2 Sunder with Kashmiro stands not proven to be dissolved. Consequently, even if, the plaintiff on the occurrence of demise of her husband Puran Chand, cohabited with Sunder and also from her cohabitation with defendant No.2 Sunder, she reared children from his loins, it would not beget any presumption of both the plaintiff and defendant No.2 Sunder cohabiting as legally wedded husband and wife, unless, for reiteration, forthright evidence stood adduced in display of defendant No.2 Sunder before cohabiting with the plaintiff, his lawfully severing his marital ties with Kashmiro. Since, the aforesaid evidence stands unadduced hereat the mere factum of cohabitation occurring inter se the plaintiff and defendant No.2 would not rear a conclusion of the plaintiff on the demise of her husband Puran Chand remarrying him nor also any inference is warranted thereupon of hers not being construable to be the widow of her predeceased husband. Consequently, it is aptly concluded of hers being the surviving widow of her predeceased husband Puran Chand, hence, she on demise of Santu, the common ancestor of her predeceased husband Puran Chand and also of the defendants, standing entitled along with them to a share in the property of her father-in-law, deceased Santu. In sequel, the attestation of mutation of inheritance by the revenue agency concerned qua the estate of deceased Santu vis-a-vis the defendants and to the exclusion of the plaintiff is palpably erroneous. In sequel, the attestation of mutation of inheritance by the revenue agency concerned qua the estate of deceased Santu vis-a-vis the defendants and to the exclusion of the plaintiff is palpably erroneous. Accordingly, mutation No.94 of 24.2.1996 is quashed and set aside. 11. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court as well as by the learned trial Court stand based upon a proper and mature appreciation of the evidence on record. While rendering the findings, both the learned Courts below have not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law stands answered in favour of the plaintiff/respondent and against the defendant/appellant. 12. In view of above discussion, the present Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. In sequel, the judgments and decrees rendered by both the learned Courts below are maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.