JUDGMENT

M. M. DAS, J.

Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 5.10.2004 passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Cuttack in Title Appeal Nos. 25 and 95 of 2000 . The learned lower appellate court while dismissing the Title Appeal No. 95 of 2000 preferred by the present appellants and allowing the Title Appeal No. 25 of 2000 filed by the respondents reversed the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division passed in T.S. No. 147 of 1997. Both the appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law:-“Whether Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 empowers a widow to gift her husband’s property ?

During course of hearing, it appeared to the Court that a further substantial question of law also arises for determination in these two Second Appeals, i.e. “whether the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act is available to be raised on the certified copy of a document, which has been admitted as secondary evidence ?”

2. The facts leading to both the above appeals are required to be referred to in gist.

One Sulochana Sethi, the predecessor of the present appellants filed the suit bearing T.S. No.147 of 1997 in the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 1st Court, Cuttack impleading the respondents as defendants, seeking declaration of her title over Ac.0.03 decimals of land from the southern part of the suit property, in accordance with the registered gift deed bearing No.5511 dated 04.12.1944 executed in her favour and in the alternative to declare her title over the same by way of adverse possession along with a further prayer for partition of her fifty per cent share.

3. The plaintiff’s case was that the suit land originally belonged to one Madan Sethi, the father of the plaintiff -Sulochana, who is the common ancestor of all the parties. The said Madan Sethi died prior to 1944 leaving behind two widows, namely, Nima Bewa and Udia Bewa, a married daughter (plaintiff-Sulochana) and a minor son, namely, Babaji Sethi (through Udia). The defendant No.1 is the widow and the defendants 2 to 8 are the sons and daughters of late Babaji Sethi. After the death of Madan Sethi, both his widows gifted away half portion of the suit schedule property from southern part measuring Ac.0.03 decimals with two thatched rooms in favour of the plaintiff by executing and registering a gift deed. Babaji Sethi lived in the northern half of the suit schedule property, who died in 1955 and his legal heirs, the defendants, continued to possess the suit land, which was in possession of late Babaji Sethi. By passage of time, dissension arose in the family, for which the plaintiff approached the local Panchayat for a decision in the matter and there being noncooperation from the defendants, the plaintiff filed the suit.

4. The case of the defendants in their written statement is that Madan Sethi, the common ancestor died in 1946 and thereafter his two widows also died prior to coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Babaji Sethi died on 20.03.1996 being succeeded by the defendants as his legal heirs. After the death of Madan Sethi in 1946, his only son Babaji Sethi inherited the suit property with life interest of the widows of Madan Sethi therein. At the time of death of Madan Sethi, Babaji Sethi being a minor, the plaintiff and her husband were looking after the affairs of the family and on their request, the widows of Madan permitted them to remain in the suit house. Taking advantage of the minority of Babaji and illiteracy of the widows, the plaintiff and her husband, in the guise of a Power of Attorney, got the gift deed executed on 04.12.1944. The gift deed, being a fraudulent document inasmuch as the widows having no right of alienation as per Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, it does not confer any title in favour of the plaintiff. On the basis of the void gift deed, the plaintiff recorded her name along with Babaji in respect of the suit pr