LINGARAJA RATH, J. ( 1 ) THE appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant who was the plaintiff in the suit and died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court for which the present appellants were substituted. The appeal has been filed against the reversing judgement in the suit filed for declaration of right, title, interest and confirmation of possession in respect of o. 27 acres of land in Khata No. 114 of Mouza-Uasahi. The respondents 1 and 2 were the defendants 1 and 2 before the trial court and were the appellants 1 and 2 before the lower appellate court. Respondent No. 3 was the defendant No. 3 who was set ex parte and was the pro forma respondent No. 2 in the lower appellate court. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs case was that the suit land belonged to one Mani Das who died leaving behind his son Gobinda. Gobinda died in 1950 leaving behind his widow Saria and son Ganesh. While Ganesh was alive his mother fostered Kunti, defendant No. 3 for the purpose of giving her in marriage with Ganesh, but since Ganesh died before the marriage, defendant No. 3 returned to her father's place and was married to one Kartika Panda and thereafter to one Jagannath Das. The appellants purchased the suit properties from Saria by registered sale deed, Ext. 1 dated 17-2-1967. In 1971 the defendant No. 2 filed a criminal case against the plaintiff and others under Section 447 Indian Penal Code, alleging to have purchased 8 annas interest of the suit properties from defendant No. 3 on 11-3-1967, but however the case ended in acquittal. Kunti was never married to Ganesh, had no interest in the property, and was also a minor when the sale deed was obtained from Kunti fraudulently on false pretext and further, it was a nominal and void sale deed without consideration. However, since defendants 1 and 2 threatened the possession of plaintiff he filed a suit for the aforesaid reliefs. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and filed written statement stating that Kunti had married Ganesh and they had remained as husband and wife till the death of Ganesh. Kunti was major when she executed the sale deed (Ext. A) and since then they were possessing the suit land. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit and filed written statement stating that Kunti had married Ganesh and they had remained as husband and wife till the death of Ganesh. Kunti was major when she executed the sale deed (Ext. A) and since then they were possessing the suit land. ( 3 ) THE trial court framed 6 issues and came to the conclusion that Kunti was not married to Ganesh and defendants 1 and 2 had not acquired title or possession over the suit land by virtue of their purchase from Kunti. The court found the plaintiff's title over the suit land on the basis of purchase from Saria by Ext. 1. ( 4 ) THE findings of the trial court were however reversed by the lower appellate court finding that Kunti was married to Ganesh who executed the sale deed Ext. A in favour of defendants 1 and 2 when she was major. The learned Subordinate Judge also found that the sale deed was for consideration but however found that instead of 8 annas interest claimed to have been acquired by defendants 1 and 2, they had acquired 4 annas interest of the suit properties since Kunti had 4 annas interest in the suit properties. Consequently the decree of the trial court was modified to the extent that the plaintiff had title over 12 annas interest over the suit property and the possession to the extent was confirmed. The plaintiff thereafter preferred this present appeal which was admitted on the question of law raised in paragraphs 6 and 8 of the memorandum of appeal as substantial questions of law. Paragraphs 6 and 8 of the grounds of memorandum of appeal are respectively that the lower court had committed an illegality in discarding the voters' list (Ext. 8) on the ground that the person who prepared the voters' list had not been examined and that the reversal of the finding by the lower appellate court of the trial court as regards the marriage of Kunti to Ganesh was illegal since the lower appellate Court had not discussed the reasons given by the trial court and had not assigned any cogent reasons to reverse the finding. ( 5 ) THE most material question for decision in the case was whether Kunti was married to Ganesh and whether she was major by the time Ext. A was executed. ( 5 ) THE most material question for decision in the case was whether Kunti was married to Ganesh and whether she was major by the time Ext. A was executed. In deciding the question of relationship of one person to another the principles of S. 50 of the Evidence Act are to be kept in view. When oral evidence is led to establish such relationship, the evidence must be of an opinion, as expressed by conduct regarding existence of such relationship. Such opinion may be given by any person who has any special means of knowledge on the subject either being member of the family or otherwise, but however, such opinion must be expressed by conduct and such conduct can only be proved under Section 60 of the Evidence Act by a person who has actually seen or experienced the conduct. If the person expressing the opinion is a member of the family or is a relation, he thereby gathers special means of knowledge regarding the relationship. The gathering of such special knowledge is not however confined only to the members of the family and can be gathered either by the members of the family or otherwise. Neighbours, co-villagers and friends having frequent intercourse can gather special means of knowledge of such relationship. However, merely having special knowledge as to the relationship of the parties is not sufficient. The opinion of the person having such special knowledge is not relevant unless it is expressed by conduct which means an overt act. The opinion, which means coming to a conscious judgement or conviction, must emanate from the conduct exhibited showing that the person concerned has formed Such a judgement or conviction. The law on the subject has been summarised with crystal clarity in decision of this Court reported in (1967) 33 Cut LT 740. ( 6 ) KEEPING in view the above principle the learned lower appellate Court has discussed in detail the evidence of the defendants who had the onus to prove the marriage of Kunti to Ganesh and has come to the conclusion that Kunti was married to Ganesh. He has relied on the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 who are respectively defendants 1 and 2 themselves as also of D. Ws. 3 and 5 and has come to the finding of marriage between Kunti and Ganesh. He has relied on the evidence of D. Ws. 1 and 2 who are respectively defendants 1 and 2 themselves as also of D. Ws. 3 and 5 and has come to the finding of marriage between Kunti and Ganesh. Each of the witnesses had such special knowledge and their opinion regarding the marriage of Kunti to Ganesh was expressed by their conduct. D. W. 1 accompanied Ganesh as a Barajatri. D. W. 2 also says that he accompanied Ganesh as a Barajatri. Both of them say that they had seen the marriage of Ganesh with Kunti having gone as such Barajatris. D. W. 3 who is a co-villager of Kunti also says that he witnessed the marriage. D. W. 4 says that he was the light-bearer who went with the party of Ganesh and had seen the marriage. D. W. 5 claims to be the brother-in-law of Ganesh having married his elder sister Hema and to have gone as a Barajatri to the marriage and had witnessed the marriage. The evidence of the witnesses has been assailed on the ground that D. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 were not able to name the Purohit, barber and astrologer who acted in the marriage. It is in evidence that Sajani (P. W. 5), the sister of Ganesh married on the very same day Ganesh was married, and hence Ganesh was not accompanied by the Purohit, astrologer and barber from his village and their functions were performed by the Purohit, astrologer and barber of Kunti's village. The learned lower appellate Court has discussed relevant reasons for disagreeing with the trial court regarding the evidentiary value of D. Ws. 1, 2 and 4 saying that under such circumstances it was not possible for them to remember the names of the Purohit, astrologer and barber of Kunti's village. D. W. 3 has named the Purohit, astrologer and barber he being a man of village of Kunti. D. W. 5 has also been believed as a relation to Ganesh. ( 7 ) THE judgement of the learned lower appellate Court has also been assailed on the issue of marriage of Kunti to Ganesh as being based only upon the evidence of the D. Ws. and not referring to the evidence of the P. Ws. at all. The evidence on the plaintiffs side on the question is that of P. Ws. and not referring to the evidence of the P. Ws. at all. The evidence on the plaintiffs side on the question is that of P. Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. P. W. 3 has been disbelieved since though he is a co-villager of Ganesh, yet had no special knowledge regarding the marriage of Kunti to Ganesh as he was a Government servant and remained outside the village and retired in 1967. He was not present in the village at the time of the alleged marriage. P. W. 4 though is an agnate of Ganesh yet he has purchased A. O. 42 decimals of land from Saria on the very same day of the execution of Ext. 1 and for such reason the lower appellate Court has not placed any reliance on his evidence. P. W. 5 is admittedly the sister of Ganesh and thus has special knowledge regarding the relationship of the parties. The learned lower appellate Court has not believed her evidence taking the view that it was natural for her to deny Kunti's marriage to Ganesh since she would be interested in supporting the sale by her mother who had transferred the entire interest in the suit properties to the plaintiff. It could not be said that such reasonings by the lower appellate Court is perverse and one which could not have been taken by any rational person. P. W. 2 is an agnate of the father of Kunti and states that Kunti was not married to Ganesh. His evidence has been disbelieved since he is a witness to Exts. D to K i. e. the deeds of relinquishment executed by Para, the mother of Kunti in favour of the plaintiff and other purchasers. Exts. D to K are inadmissible documents but, however, Ext. K purports to be a document in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff however disclaims the document and says that it had been executed at the instance of the defendants. P. W. 6 has been disbelieved since he is a neighbour of Ganesh and not of Kunti. P. W. 6 is a neighbour of Ganesh and thus had special means of knowledge regarding relationship of Kunti and Ganesh. However, even though the rejection of evidence of P. Ws. P. W. 6 has been disbelieved since he is a neighbour of Ganesh and not of Kunti. P. W. 6 is a neighbour of Ganesh and thus had special means of knowledge regarding relationship of Kunti and Ganesh. However, even though the rejection of evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 6 by the lower appellate Court may not be very proper, yet since the learned Subordinate Judge reached a finding of fact regarding the marriage between Kunti to Ganesh on the appreciation of the entire evidence of P. Ws. and D. Ws. , and it cannot be said that such finding is wholly perverse or contrary to law, it will not be open to disturb such finding at the second appellate stage. It is well known that the High Court cannot interfere with the conclusion of the lower appellate Court unless such finding is contrary to law or some usage having the force of law, or not supported by any evidence or it is shown that such court has failed to decide a material issue of law or usage having the force of law, or that the judgement suffers from substantial error or defect in the procedure provided by law which has produced error or defect in the decision of the case on merits. The defect or error must be relating to procedure and one not relating to appreciation of evidence adduced by parties on merits. In AIR 1963 SC 302 Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramalingan Chettiar it was held that even if the appreciation of evidence made by the lower appellate Court is patently erroneous and the finding of fact recorded in consequence is grossly erroneous, that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error or defect in the procedure. The decision fully applies to the facts of the case and hence the finding of the lower appellate Court that Kunti was married to Ganesh is not available to be interfered with. Besides, the Subordinate, Judge has also taken another vital circumstance into consideration for coming to his conclusion. The plaintiff filed Ext. 10, the deposition of Saria in I. C. C. 130/71 wherein Saria stated that she had brought Kunti to her home with a view to give her in marriage to Ganesh and that after the death of Ganesh, Kunti stayed with her two more years. The plaintiff filed Ext. 10, the deposition of Saria in I. C. C. 130/71 wherein Saria stated that she had brought Kunti to her home with a view to give her in marriage to Ganesh and that after the death of Ganesh, Kunti stayed with her two more years. It is rather unnatural as to why Kunti who was specifically brought to the house for being given in marriage to Ganesh, would continue to stay for two years more with Saria even after the death of Ganesh. ( 8 ) FOR coming to the conclusion the lower appellate Court has however placed reliance on Ext. K which is one of the deeds of relinquishment executed by Para on 6-4-1967. Ext. K is the deed of the relinquishment executed in favour of the plaintiff. Exts. D to K which are identical deeds of relinquishment were executed on 6-4-1967. Exts. D to K, however are not the original deeds of relinquishment but are certified copies only. They were marked as Exhibits on 6-1-1978 with objection by which day the evidence of both sides was already closed. Earlier the defendants had filed on 12-7-1976 a petition for amendment of the written statement to the effect that the plaintiff had taken a deed of relinquishment from Para Devi, the mother of Kunti. To such petition the plaintiff filed a petition on 29-7-76 denying that there was any such relinquishment to his knowledge and if there is any such deed, defendants 1 and 2 should file the same or copy of the same for perusal. Defendants 1 and 2 filed objection stating that there is no such deed of relinquishment or copy of the same in their possession and so they are unable to produce the same. The certified copies however were later on filed by defendants 1 and 2 and as stated earlier, were marked with objections on 6-1-1978. The documents were plainly inadmissible in evidence in view of the provisions of Sections 65 and 67 of the Evidence Act. In the first instance it was never shown or appeared that the original of Ext. K was in possession of the plaintiff and secondly no notice as required under S. 66 of the Evidence Act had been given to the party in whose possession or power the documents were supposed to be. In the first instance it was never shown or appeared that the original of Ext. K was in possession of the plaintiff and secondly no notice as required under S. 66 of the Evidence Act had been given to the party in whose possession or power the documents were supposed to be. No grounds were also at any time laid to show that such notice was not required. Under the circumstances Ext. K. must be held to be a document not admissible and must be kept out of consideration. Besides D. W. 3 is the witness who speaks about deed of relinquishment even though he does not prove Ext. K. The trial court had rightly stated that Ext. K. could not be relied upon since on the evidence of D. W. 3 himself, who is an identifier of Ext. K, neither he nor Para was present when Ext. K was written. The contents of Ext. K were not read over to Para. He did not know what was written in Ext. K and he did not ask either Para or Kartika, the attestor, as to why Ext. K was got executed. Para is admittedly an illiterate lady. The learned Subordinate Judge was thus wrong to place any reliance on Ext. K and has clearly misconceived in stating that the recitals of Ext. K even though are not admissions of the plaintiff, yet would bind him since he has not come forward to challenge the recitals in Ext. K. The Court lost sight of the fact that the plaintiff had filed a petition on 29-7-1976 i. e. at the earliest occasion, when the defendants proposed to amend the written statement, challenging the statement of a deed of relinquishment being in existence. Thereafter, there was no further occasion for the plaintiff to challenge the same since the documents were marked as exhibit only on 6-1-1978 after the closure of evidence. ( 9 ) THE next question is regarding the question of age of Kunti at the time of execution of Ext. A. The trial court on the discussion of evidence regarding age of Kunti at the time of execution of Ext. A stated that considering the entire evidence on record doubt is created as to whether Kunti was major by 1967. However, the lower appellate Court has found that Kunti was major by 1967 that is when Ext. A was executed. A. The trial court on the discussion of evidence regarding age of Kunti at the time of execution of Ext. A stated that considering the entire evidence on record doubt is created as to whether Kunti was major by 1967. However, the lower appellate Court has found that Kunti was major by 1967 that is when Ext. A was executed. For coming to such conclusion the learned Subordinate Judge has not discussed the evidence but has mainly proceeded on the conjectures and surmises. According to him Kunti must have appeared before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of Ext. A and if she would have been a minor at that time, the Sub-Registrar ought to have noticed the same and would not have registered the sale deed Ext. A. Such a conclusion is unwarranted since the age of a girl who is either 15 years, 17 years or 18 years old cannot be known from the mere appearance of the girl and the Sub-Registrar is admittedly not an expert on the subject. The other evidence taken into consideration by the lower appellate Court is that of Sajani, P. W. 5 who at the time of initial recording of her statement stated her age was 35. Since she was deposing on 16-7-1977 and since she said that Kunti was younger to her by 3 years, the Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that Kunti must be major by 1967. However, P. W. 5 corrected herself in the very examination in chief and said that she would be 27 or 28 years and that Kunti is younger to her by 3 years. In cross examination she stated that she is younger than her husband by 10 years and that he would have been 35 years by then. It is apparent that P. W. 5 was confused in giving her age when the same was recorded at the commencement of her deposition. Even if the extreme view is taken, then P. W. 5 would not be a credible witness as regards her age. While the lower appellate Court has relied on such conjectures to hold that Kunti was major in 1967, he has illegally rejected the most vital piece of evidence on the issue. Ext. Even if the extreme view is taken, then P. W. 5 would not be a credible witness as regards her age. While the lower appellate Court has relied on such conjectures to hold that Kunti was major in 1967, he has illegally rejected the most vital piece of evidence on the issue. Ext. 8 is the voter list of 1973 wherein admittedly Kunti had been shown to be 21 years on 1-1-1973 and accordingly Kunti must have been about 15 years of age in 1967. Ext. 8 has been discarded by the learned Subordinate Judge on the ground that the person preparing voters' list has not been examined and there is no evidence to show at whose instance her age was mentioned in Ext. For coming to such conclusion the Subordinate Judge relied upon (1970) 36 Cut LT 1211 Paramananda Sahu v. Babu Sahu. The decision was overruled in the Full Bench ease reported in (1972) 1 Cut WR 57 Kirtan Sahu v. Thakur Sahu, wherein it was held that when the electoral roll is produced before the Court it shall regard the facts entered in the electoral roll as proved under the provisions of Section 81 read with Section 4 of the Evidence Act unless and until it is disproved. Thus, the age of Kunti in 1967 shall be taken as 15 based upon the voters' list, Ext. 8 and hence it must be held that she had no legal competence to convey a title through the sale deed (Ext. A ). The sale deed was thus, void, inoperative and did not confer any title on defendants 1 and 2. ( 10 ) IN this connection, Ext. K also makes an interesting disclosure. Ext. K is purported to have been executed by Para as mother guardian of Kunti showing her to be a minor. Ext. K is dated 6-4-1967. D. W. 4 who speaks about the deed of relinquishment says that the age of Kunti as recorded in Ext. A is wrong. As has been shown earlier, D. W. 3 had absolutely no knowledge regarding the contents of Ext. K. Further, if Kunti would have been major by 6-4-1967, there would have been no occasion for execution of the deed of relinquishment by Para describing herself as mother guardian. However, at any rate Ext. K, as has been discussed above, is not an admissible document. K. Further, if Kunti would have been major by 6-4-1967, there would have been no occasion for execution of the deed of relinquishment by Para describing herself as mother guardian. However, at any rate Ext. K, as has been discussed above, is not an admissible document. Kunti had also purported to have transferred the entire suit properties in Ext. A even though defendants 1 and 2 in the written statement pleaded that they are claiming only 8 annas interest in the properties since Kunti had 8 annas interest. Kunti did not have 8 annas interest in the property. That is why the learned Subordinate Judge modified the decree of the trial court and declared 12 annas interest in favour of the plaintiff holding that Kunti had only 4 annas interest in the property. However even if the sale deed in favour of defendants 1 and 2 fail, yet the plaintiff cannot be granted a decree for the full 16 annas interest on the basis of Ext. 1 since Kunti had 4 annas share in the property and Saria had no competence to alienate the entire 16 annas share in the property. ( 11 ) HAVING found that the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to 3/4th share in the suit property, his title to the same is hereby declared. But there having no division of the suit property, his possession with respect to any specified portion thereof in proportion to his share cannot be confirmed nor can any decree for permanent injunction be passed in his favour for that reason. In normal course of events the parties were to seek a partition of the suit property in a separate suit but in order to meet the ends of justice and to avoid multiplicity of litigation, I consider it appropriate to direct a preliminary decree to be drawn up for partition of the suit property by metes and bounds allotting 3/4th share to the plaintiff appellant and the balance 1/4th share to Kunti. The parties are at liberty to get partition amicably done within a period of four months from the date of preliminary decree failing which any of them may apply for final decree to be passed and for obtaining separate possession of their respective shares in the suit property. Till then the parties having interest in the suit property shall be deemed to be in joint possession thereof. Till then the parties having interest in the suit property shall be deemed to be in joint possession thereof. ( 12 ) IN the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the modification as stated above in the decree passed by the lower appellate Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of this Court. Appeal dismissed. .