JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2019 passed by the learned Family Court, Bastar Place Jagdalpur in Civil Suit No. 36-A/2013 whereby a decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent No. 1 Raity/Rayati to be the daughter of Jhitku Ram. Being aggrieved by such order, the other legal heirs preferred this appeal. To appreciate the factual matrix and the issue involved in this case, we would like to reproduce here the genealogical tree of the parties as submitted before us.

2. Plaintiff Smt. Raity/Rayati wife of Sampat Ram filed a suit for declaration that she was born out of marriage of Raimani @ Raimati and Jhitkuram and is legitimate child. Raimati was married to Budhram and it was stated that out of marriage a son namely Sampat, son was born. After death of Budhram, the plaintiff pleaded that as per the caste-custom, Jhitkuram who was also a family member, by performance of Chudi custom accepted Raimati (widow of Budhram) as his wife and out that relation, Raity/Rayati the plaintiff was born. Jhitku Ram was arrayed as defendant No. 1 in the original suit and Raimani @ Raymati was arrayed as defendant no. 2.

3. In the written statement of Jhitku Ram, he denied to have married with Raymati as per the custom and also denied the paternity of Raity, the Ravindra (Appellant) Chamaru Lokhi Baishaku Dashrath (issueless) Sudharan Jhitakuram Defendant No. 1 Bhagirathi (Daughter) Bati Neela (Daughter) Hiram (Daughter) Budhsan Ramdas Bahadur Chandarsingh Wife Siyabai (died) Munju (Daughter) (Appellant) Budhram (died) Raimati (wife) Defendant No. 2 Sampat Sampati Raity (Plaintiff) plaintiff. The plaintiff examined herself and one Sampat Ram whereas during the life time of Jhitku Ram, he could not adduce any evidence and eventually the right to lead evidence was closed by the trial Court on 05.12.2015. Thereafter, Jhitku Ram died on 22.07.2016 which is reflected by the order dated 11.05.2017. The application under Order 22 Rule 4 of CPC was filed wherein the plaintiff was arrayed as defendant. The order sheet of the Court below would show that subsequently no application was filed to reopen the evidence and thereafter the case was decided on merits.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that in the evidence adduced by the plaintiff, the factum of marriage has not been proved and the custom of “Chudi” and the rituals have also not been proved, consequently it will lead to substantiate that no marriage took place. He would submit that Jhitku Ram was married to Siya Bai and out of such marriage Ravindranath and Manju @ Manjulata were born who are appellants herein. He submits that Raimati was married to Budhram and after death of Budhram, Raimati was not married to Jhitku Ram but the paternity is claimed by Raity without any evidence. Learned Counsel further submits that in such instances in absence of any evidence, the declaration of paternity and legitimacy cannot be attached to respondent No. 1 Raity and the judgment and decree calls for intervention.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the contenting defendant mainly Jhitkuram, whereas defendant no. 2, the mother Raimani @ Raimati had accepted the plaint averments. He would submit that the submissions were further followed by the supportive documentary evidence i.e., the school marks-sheet register and transfer certificate wherein the name of father of plaintiff recorded was shown as Jhitku Ram. He further submits that those documents will have a presumptive value of correctness and in absence of evidence in rebuttal, the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court is well merited and does not call for any interference.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main contest was in between the original plaintiff Raity respondent no. 1 in appeal) and Jhitku Ram defendant no. 1. The plaintiff claimed to be the daughter of Jhitku Ram and