Sanjay K Agrawal, J.

1. The following substantial question of law was framed at the time of admission of appeal:-

"Whether the Learned Lower Appellate Court was justified in law in reversing the decree passed by the Trial Court and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff by holding marriage of defendant No. 1 Rasekeliya Bai with late Aghansai proved in the absence of legally admissible evidence of proof of valid marriage in accordance with law?"

Parties hereinafter will be referred as per their status and ranking shown in the plaint before the trial Court.

2. The suit property was held by Dular Sai. His widow namely Bechni had filed the instant suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but during the pendency of suit, she died and her daughter Sanmet was substituted as plaintiff in the suit, as her son Aghan Sai had already died on 3.1.1981. The original plaintiff has filed suit that her son Aghan Sai was impotent and on account of his impotency, his wife left him and thereafter, Aghan Sai did not marry any woman including defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is not the son of Aghan Sai out of his alleged wedlock with defendant No. 1. Mutation was done by the revenue authority in revenue records in the names of the plaintiff and the defendants jointly leading to filing of suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the exclusive title holder of the suit land and also entitled for permanent injunction. Defendants No. 1 & 2 filed written statement stating inter-alia that Aghan Sai had married Raskeliya defendant No. 1 and out of their wedlock, defendant No. 2 was born and therefore they are also entitled to succeed the suit property of Dular Sai.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit holding that marriage had never taken place between Aghan Sai and defendant No. 1 and therefore defendant No. 2 is also not entitled to succeed the property of Aghan Sai by virtue of Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 against which first appeal was preferred by defendants No. 1 & 2 and the first appellate Court reversed the finding of the trial Court by holding that marriage of Aghan Sai was solemnised with defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is son born out of their valid wedlock and as such, set aside the decree of the trial Court against which second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in which substantial question of law has been formulated which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

4. Mr. Sushil Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, submits that the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that marriage of Aghan Sai was solemnised with defendant No. 1, as there is no legally admissible evidence on record to prove the valid marriage. He further submits that birth certificate of defendant No. 2 dated 31.10.1980 has been relied upon which is not proved as well as un-exhibited document and which has not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in relying upon the said unproved document. He also submits that there is no evidence at all on the record to hold that marriage of defendant No. 1 was solemnised ever with Aghan Sai and therefore judgment & decree of the first appellate Court deserve to be set aside by restoring the judgment & decree of the trial Court.

5. Mr. A.K. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for defendants No. 1 & 2/respondents No. 1 & 2 herein, assisted by Mr. Rishi Mahobia, submits that the first appellate Court is absolutely justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, as there is sufficient evidence on record to hold that marriage of defendant No. 1 was solemnised with Aghan Sai and defendant No. 2 was born out of their wedlock and therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff was rightly dismissed by the first appellate Court.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumsp