Judgment 1. THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the 5th Court of the additional District Judge at Midnapore in Title Appeal no. 77 of 1978. 2. THE plaintiffs filed the suit for a declaration of title, for a further declaration that the defendant has none, for recovery of possession, confirmation and injunction. The plaint case is that the suit property belonged to Sibu Samanta Sibu samanta married one Sajoni who left her matrimonial home. Thereafter, Sibu married one Niroda and a daughter Kironbala by name was horn out of the wedlock. Niroda inherited the property of her husband. On the death of Sibu, Sajoni came back with an illeg. itimate child Haripada by name. By a village salish the property was partitioned. The 'kha' schedule property was allotted to Niroda and since then Niroda as possessing the said property. Nirodabala was married to one Rohanikanta Das who used to live in his father in law's house. Niroda sold 'kha' schedule properties to Rajoni on 15. 1. 43 and delivered possession to the purchaser. Rajoni possessed the property and in revisional record of right his name has been recorded. On. the death of Rajoni the plaintiff 1 to 7 has inherited the property. The defendanat had been threaening to disposses the plaintiffs. So, the suit was filed. Haripada was granted licence to live in the disputed 'kha' schedule property and the licence has since been revoked. Thereafter, the suit has been filed. The defendant challenged all the allegations in the plaint. He asserts that he is a legitimate son of Sibu and Sajoni. By an amicable arrangement between Sajoni and Niroda the former got Kha schedule property. The Kobala by Niroda in favour of Rajani is collusive. 3. THE trial court dismissed the suit and the court of appeal be low has confirmed the judgment. 4. ADMITTEDLY, the 'kha' schedule properties in dispute belonged to Sibu Samanta There is no controversy either that sibu had two wives - Niroda and Sajoni by names. It is also admitted that Kironbala is the daughter of niroda who was married to Rajoni. It is also admitted that Niroda executed a deed of sale in favour of Rajoni on 15. 1. 43. It is uncontrovered that Haripada was born of Sajoni. There is a concurrent finding of fact that haripada is the legitimate son of Sajoni and Sibu. It is also admitted that Niroda executed a deed of sale in favour of Rajoni on 15. 1. 43. It is uncontrovered that Haripada was born of Sajoni. There is a concurrent finding of fact that haripada is the legitimate son of Sajoni and Sibu. This finding of fact arrived at by the two courts below cannot be reopened. The two courts below have also disbelieved the plea of partition. Mr. Sanerji, appearing for the plaintiffs argues that the recital in the sale deed marked ext. 1 will bind the defendant. The document was exhibited on formal proof being waived, Mr. Banerji places reliance upon Lionel Edwards vs., State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1972 SC 603 to contend that once the document has been exhibited on formal proof being waived the recitals in the sale deed (Ext. 1) cannot be challenged. According to him, the sale deed could prove the plaintiffs' plea of partition and the illegitimacy of. Haripada. None of the decisions supports the legal proposition propounded by Mr. Banerji. In Lioneld Edwards's case (supra) it has of course been held that once a document is marked on formal proof being waived the contents became evidence and the adversary has a. right of cross-examination. This decisions took notice of Hadholal vs. Asian Assurance co. Ltd., AIR 1954 Bom 335 and agreed with the view that a person having personal knowledge of the document or rather can vouch for the correctness of the document should be examined if the contents are at issue. In this suit both partition and legitimacy of Haripada are at issue. Therefore, the document which has been exhibited in this case does not prove the correctness of the document. None appears in the box to vouch for the correctness of the contents of the deed of sale (Ext. 1. Consequently the defendant had no opportunity to cross examine any person supporting the recital of the document. The plea of partition and legitimacy off Haripada being very such in Issue the defendant cannot be turned down by the recital of the sale deed of Niroda while none figured in the box to vouch for the correctness of the sale deed''. P. C Purusothama's case (supra) also is of little assistance. In that case a police report had gone down in evidence without objection and without Communication of the reporter. P. C Purusothama's case (supra) also is of little assistance. In that case a police report had gone down in evidence without objection and without Communication of the reporter. Supreme Court said that the admissibility cannot be questioned when the document has been marked without objection. In the instant case, document has been marked on formal proof being waived as distinguished from without objection. While document is marked on formal proof being waived the party relying upon the document is not required to examine any witness to prove the document formally is no admission of contents nor forgoing the right to challenge the contents. Therefore, the contents cannot be held to have been admitted. The, rent receipts and the revisional record of right cannot take away the interest of Haripada which he had as on heir of Sibu. In view of these facts the two courts below rightly found against the plaintiffs. Mr. Banerji, however, urges that the plaintiffs will succeed to the estate of Sibu either on account of purchase by Rajani, their predecessor, or by inheritance through Niroda. According to Mr. Banerji, the court ought not to have dismissed the suit altogether. The two courts below overlooked a very pertinent fact. Niroda had a limited interest in the property left by her husband. In other words, she had only a Widow's estate. She transferred her interest as early as on 15. 1. 43 in favour of her son-in-law rajani by virtue of a sale deed marked Ext. 1. He was divested of her possession. There is not only an admission in the plaint in that behalf but also the fact is supported by the dakhilas filed on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is undisputed that Niroda is long dead. Therefore, Rajani or as a matter of that his heirs acquired only the life estate of Niroda by purchase. Such life estate cannot survive the death of the limited owner nor ripen into an absolute interest on the promulgation of. Hindu Succession Act, 1936 particularly since the widow niroda parted with her possession in favour of the alienee. On the death of Niroda succession opens as on death of the original owner Sibu and the property will revert to the reversioner. Hindu Succession Act, 1936 particularly since the widow niroda parted with her possession in favour of the alienee. On the death of Niroda succession opens as on death of the original owner Sibu and the property will revert to the reversioner. My view will find support in Mangla Balmukund vs. Mathiya, AIR 1971 Punjab 65; Parameswari vs. Santokhi, AIR 1977 Punjab 141 ; Nath Bandhuvs Chanchala, air 1976 Cal 303 and Dindayal vs. Rajaram, AIR 1970 SC 1919 , Supreme Court laid down in Dindayal's case that the things are necessary, viz., widow must have a right to possess the property and they must have been in possession of the property either actually or constructively in order to claim as on absolute owner under section 14 (1)of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. If on account of this infirmity widow Niroda could not became an absolute owner even on her survival on the date of the concurrent of the Act her alience could not acquire a better interest after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, Rajani or as a matter of that his heirs cannot claim the suit property. Their case cannot succeed on this score also. In the result, the appeal fails. I made no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.