JUDGMENT

A. S. NAIDU, J. — This appeal is preferred under Sec. 19 (1) of the Family Courts Act by the unsuccessful defendant wife (appellant in the present appeal) being aggrieved by the judgment dated October, 5, 1996 passed by the Judge, Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 186 of 1991.

2. Dillip Kumar Patnaik, the plaintiff-husband, (respond¬ent in the present appeal) filed Civil Proceeding No. 186 of 1991 praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the document styled as “Bibaha Bandhan Agreement” bearing Registration No. 703 dated 24.11.1996 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack is a fraud¬ulent and fabricated one and that he had never married the de¬fendant-wife, Namita Mohanty and the latter is not his married wife as well as for other consequential reliefs.

3. The short facts which are necessary for appreciating the case are as follows :

The plaintiff-husband is an employee of the Postal Depart¬ment and at the relevant time (1986) was posted at Athagarh. The fathers of both the parties were serving in the Postal Department and belong to the same village. Thus, the plaintiff-husband and defendant knew each other for quite some time. The plaintiff was also very much acquainted with other family members of the de¬fendant’s family, more particularly with Debasis, the brother of the defendant-wife, as both of them were students of the same school being S.K. Academy, Jagatsinghpur. It is alleged in the plaint that on November 24, 1986 while the plaintiff was going to Athagarh, Debasis met him at Badambadi Bus Stand and requested him to meet his father at Cuttack Collectorate on some urgent work. Plaintiff came to Cuttack Collectorate, saw Debasis there and on his request put signatures as a witness in an agreement, which he was told to be executed by his sister, defendant herein, for incurring certain loans. In view of the old friendship, the plaintiff in good faith put signatures on some stamp papers and thereafter went to General Post Office. Later on the request of Debasis, he came to Cuttack Sub-Registrar’s office where the document was presented for registration and after the same was registered, the plaintiff went to Athagarh. It is further alleged that some of his friends advised him to scrutinise the documents and the plaintiff suspecting some foul play came to Cuttack and on enquiry came to know that Debasis had managed to create an agreement between the plaintiff and his sister, different and got it registered fraudulently by mentioning therein that the plain¬tiff and defendant married at Jhankad Sarala Temple on Gandharba form on November 16, 1986 and that they were living as husband and wife. it is further alleged in the plaint that the facts recited in the agreement are fraudulent and false. On coming to know about the said facts,the plaintiff executed a registered deed dated December 11, 1986 cancelling the registered deed dated November 24, 1986. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, it was prayed to declare the “Bibaha Bandhana Agree¬ment” dated November 24, 1986 to be a fabricated and fraudulent document and that there was no marriage at all between the par¬ties.

4. After receiving notice of the aforesaid proceedings, the defendant appeared and filed written statement, inter alia, repudiating all the allegations made in the plaint. It is stated that parents of both families are known to each other for years. They belong to the same village and both the appellant and respondent were in love with each other and decided to marry. Further, it is assert¬ed that, the marriage between the defendant and the plaintiff was solemnised according to the caste customs with proper ceremonies and in due form at Sarala Temple. It is further averred that after marriage, the couple led a blissful conjugal married life to the knowledge of the society for good number of days and resided as husband and wife at Samanta Sahi, Cuttack as well as at Athagarh. While the matter stood thus, the father of the respon