JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.—This Regular Second Appeal has been directed by the defendant Smt. Lachhmi, against the judgment and decree date 29 3-1989 of the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, reversing the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1986 of the learned Sub-Judge 1st Class, Arki, 2. The admitted pedigree table of the parties is as under :— Pritam Durga (Plaintiff No.1) Lekh Ram Smt. Lachhmi (Widow) Sukh Ram Giaru Defendant No. 1 (defendant No. 2) Succeeded by plaintiffs No. 2 to 13 Briefly stated the facts as are enumerated in the plaint may be stated thus s/Shri Puria Ram Dass and Tikhu, the three sons of Pritam, constituted a joint Hindu Family. Ram Dass died in 2004 BK (corresponding to he year 1947 by British Calendar). His son Lekh Ram had pre deceased him ?n 2003 BK (corresponding to the year 1946) After the death of Lekh Ram his widow Smt. Lachhmi. defendant No 1 is alleged to have remarmarried Giaru defendant No. 2, in 2003 BK according to the custom prevalent amongst the members of the community (Kunait Rajput) of the parties and she is alleged to have given birth to three sons and a daughters from the loins of Giaru, defendant No. 2 Since Smt Lachhmi. defendant. had contracted a second marriage, she did not acquire any right, title or Seres in the estate of the deceased Ram Dass and Lekh Sam Inspire of such remarriage. Smt Lachhmi is being recorded as widow of Lekh Ram in Even record and on the basis of such wrong entries, the defendants of to get a share in the estate, applied for partition of the joint land. Such application for partition was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st A Arki on 22 12-1981. The revenue entries showing the defendant Smt Lachhmi as a co-sharer in the joint khata are wrong. Such application for partition was dismissed by the Assistant Collector 1st A Arki on 22 12-1981. The revenue entries showing the defendant Smt Lachhmi as a co-sharer in the joint khata are wrong. Such entries were not made by Giaru defendant wrongly while acting as Karta of the Joint Hindu Family Plaintiff No. 1 the predecessor in interest of plaintiff E 2 to 13 and defendant No. 2 Giaru had purchased two parcels of land out of the funds of the Joint Hindu Family respectively on 6-7-1957 and 19-12-1956 The name of Smt. Lachhmi did not figure therein since she tad b that time remarried defendant Giaru and had ceased to be a widow of Ram However, with the active connivance of Giaru defendant, 1 name of Smt Lachhmi has come to be incorporated in the revenue record as a co sharer even in respect of the lands purchased on 19-12-1956 and 1957 The plaintiffs, accordingly, filed a suit for declaration to the effect that they and defendant No. 2 are the joint owners and in possession of the land detailed in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute, holding the shares as under :- (1) Plaintiff No. 1 1/2 share (2) Plaintiffs No. 2 to 13 1/4 share (3) Defendant No. 2 Giaru 1/4 share The plaintiffs further claimed that the revenue entries showing defendant Smt Lachhmi as one of the co sharers are wrong. As a consequential relief, confirmation of joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 was claimed. 3. The suit was resisted by the two defendants They denied that Smt. Lachhmi, defendant No 1, after the death of her husband Lekh Ram, had remained defendant No. 2 Giaru It was averred that Smt. Lachhmi had succeeded to the estate of her husband in accordance with the provisions of Hindu Women Rights to Properties Act, 1935, as a widow and on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has become the full and absolute owner thereof Though the factum of Smt Lachhmi having given birth to four children after the death of her husband was admitted, it was pleaded that such children were born to her as a result of her sexual relations with plaintiff Durga and Sukh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 2 to 13. Objections as to estoppel, limitation, jurisdiction of civil courts, absence of cause of action, valuation and the suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties wert also raised. 4, The parties were put to trial on the basis of the following issues : 1. Whether the pedigree table as shown in para No, 1 of the plaint is correct ? OPP 2. Whether Lekh Ram had pre-deceased his father Ram Dass, if so its effect ? OPP 3. Whether deceased Lekh Ram had no interest in the suit property at the time of his death ? OPP 4. Whether defendant No. 1 had remarried with defendant No. 2 according to the custom as alleged ? OPP 5. Whether defendant No, 1 did not acquire any right, title or interest of deceased Lekh Ram, as alleged ? OPP 6. Whether the revenue entries showing defendant No. 1 as co-owner with other plaintiffs and defendant No 2 are void and ineffective as alleged ? OPP 7. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their acts and conducts as alleged ? OPD (1 and 2) 8. Whether the suit is barred by time ? OPD (1 and 2) 9. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action ? OPD (1 and 2) 10. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD (1 and 2) IK Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit ? OPD (2) 12. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of necessary parties ? OPD (2) 13. Whether defendant No. 2 have married with defendant No. 1, as alleged ? OPD (2) 14. Relief. 5. The learned Sub-Judge found Issues No. 1, 3 to 6 and 13 against the plaintiffs and Issues No, 7 to 9 in favour of the defendants. Issues No, 10 to i2 were decided against the defendants while Issue No 2 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequent upon such findings the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated U-7-1986. 6. On appeal carried before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree dated 11 7-1986 passed by the trial Court were set aside. The learned first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendant Snat. Consequent upon such findings the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated U-7-1986. 6. On appeal carried before the learned Additional District Judge, Solan, by the plaintiffs, the judgment and decree dated 11 7-1986 passed by the trial Court were set aside. The learned first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendant Snat. Lachhmi after the death of her husband and during the lifetime of her father-in-law Ram Dass, had remarried defendant Giaru according to custom and that she had not inherited the estate of her deceased husband. The plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 were, therefore, declared to be the joint owners and in possession of the land in dispute to the exclusion of defendant No 1 Smt Lachhmi, 7. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court, the defendant No. 1 Smt. Lachhmi has coma up before this court by way of the present Regular Second Appeal, 8. The only point in controversy in the present case is—whether the defendant No. 1 Smt Lachhmi had remarried defendant No, 2 Giaru according to custom ? 9. Admittedly, Lekh Ram the husband of defendant Smt. Lachhmi Devi had died in the year 1946 having pre deceased his father Ram Dass, who died in the year 1947 According to the plaintiffs, the defendant Smt. Lachhmi just on the tenth day after the death of her husband Lekh Ram had contracted a customary second marriage with defendant No. 2 Giaru and since then she has been living with him as his wife and she has given birth to four children, three sons and a daughter, from his loins. 10 The plaintiffs have averred in pat as 4 and S of the plaint in the following terms : — " That according to the custom prevalent in the Rajputs-Kanet in the locality, the widow of one brother could marry other brother in order to maintain the glory of the family and avoid bastardy No special ceremony was required, except, that the widow remarrying the brother of the deceased husband used to put on Till on her nose on Dharam Shanti (Soiwin) unlike other ladies of the village. The widow remarrying within the family did not dress like widow. Besides it on Dasang, the widow remarrying did not accept Vidhwa-Vastre. 5. The widow remarrying within the family did not dress like widow. Besides it on Dasang, the widow remarrying did not accept Vidhwa-Vastre. 5. That the defendant No. 1 was hardly of 14-15 years old when Lekh Ram died, who had no issue at that time. Keeping in view the young age, she lived as the wife of Giaroo, who was the cousin brother of the deceased Lekh Ram The defendant No put on the Tilli on Solwin unlike other ladies in the village and dressed like Hindu married lady. The defendant Nos, 1 and 2 lived as husband and wife and there are 4 issues out of this wedlock. The defendant No 1 remarried with Giaru according to custom with the cousin brother of her deceased husband within the same family in 2003 BK, when her father-in-law Ram Dass was alive, who died in 2004 BK corresponding to 1947 C. E." 11. It is well settled that custom is a fact which must be pleaded and proved by authoritative pronouncements or by instances in which it has been followed or by some other evidence. It cannot be established by dialectics. 12. It is equally well settled that a custom to be legally binding must be ancient, certain and invariable and the onus lies heavily upon a party setting up a special family customs at variance with the general custom and personal law of the parties and it must be proved by clear and cogent evidence. 13. The plaintiffs in the present case have failed to discharge the onus placed upon them to prove the custom. No clear and cogent evidence has been led. The only evidence coming on the record with regard to the custom comprises of the statements of PW 1 Devi Singh, plaintiff, PW 3 Kanshi Ram PW 6 Bhagwan Dass and PW 7 Jai Ram. Their evidence is based on hear-say and as such cannot be relied upon The best evidence in the form of the instances quoted by these witnesses, has not been produced. 14. There is yet another circumstance in the case. According to the plaintiffs as per the custom a widow could perform customary marriage with the brother of her deceased husband. Admittedly, defendant No. 2 Giaru is not the real brother of Lekh Ram the deceased husband of Smt. Lachhmi. 14. There is yet another circumstance in the case. According to the plaintiffs as per the custom a widow could perform customary marriage with the brother of her deceased husband. Admittedly, defendant No. 2 Giaru is not the real brother of Lekh Ram the deceased husband of Smt. Lachhmi. He is the fathers brothers son of the deceased Lekh Ram It is neither pleaded nor proved that the custom permitted a marriage of the widow with a cousin of her deceased husband. 15. The plaintiffs have, therefore, failed to prove that the parties are governed by custom in the matter of marriage. The findings on this point recorded by the learned first appellate Court, which are to the contrary are bad and cannot be sustained. 16. Assuming that the parties are governed by custom in the matter of marriage, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendant Lachhmi after the death of her husband had contracted a customary second marriage with defendant Giaru Ram. 17. The defendant Smt. Lachhmi is alleged to have contracted second customary marriage with defendant Giaru on "Dasang" day (Tenth day) of the death of her husband Lekh Ram. PW 3 Kanshi Ram has admitted that he was not present on "Dasang" day. Therefore, he is not a witness to the alleged marriage of Smt. Lachhmi with Giaru. PW 6 Bhagwan Dass has stated that the customary marriage between the two defendants took place on "Dharam-Shanti" day, that is, on the sixteenth day after the death of Lekh Ram. His evidence is thus contrary to the case of the plaintiffs. To the similar effect is the statement of PW 7 Jai Ram. This witness has further gone to state that the necessary ceremonies regarding customary marriage between the two defendants were performed on "Dharam Shanti" day by Pandit Gopalu. This Pandit has not been examined in the present case. 18. Ext DW 5/A is the copy of the family partition which took place between the parties. This document was executed in 2023 BK, that is, in the year ]966. In this document. Smt. Lachhmi has been described as widow of Lekh Ram and the same is signed by Sukh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 2 to 13. 18. Ext DW 5/A is the copy of the family partition which took place between the parties. This document was executed in 2023 BK, that is, in the year ]966. In this document. Smt. Lachhmi has been described as widow of Lekh Ram and the same is signed by Sukh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs No. 2 to 13. There is an admission made as late as in the year 1966 that Smt. Lachhmi is the widow of Lekh Ram, Had she remarried defendant Giaru in the year 1946 as alleged by the plaintiffs, she would not have been described as the widow of Lekh Ram in Ext, DW 5/A. 19. Again in Ext. DW 6/A, a document executed at the time of partition of the Gharat, Smt. Lachhmi has been described as widow of Lekh Ram. This document was executed on 16-8-1978 and the same is signed by plaintiff Durga It also contains an admission on the part of plaintiff Durga that Smt. Lachhmi is the widow of the deceased Lekh Ram. 20. There is no denying that defendant No. 2 Giaru in the year 1974 had applied under section 123, H. P. Land Revenue Act for the partition of the joint Khata. Such application was made by impleading plaintiff No 1 Durga, Sukh Ram, the predecessor in-interest of plaintiffs No 2 to 13, defendant No. 1 Smt. Lachhmi and plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 as respondents. ]n these proceedings Smt, Lachhmi was described as widow of Lekh Ram, Ext. PW 1/C (at page 166 of the file of the trial Court) is the copy of the statement dated 20-11-1974 made by plaintiff Durga, defendant No I Smt. Lachhmi and Sukh Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs 2 to 13. Vide this statement they had consented to the partition of the joint khata according to their respective shares. The statement by Smt. Lachhmi was made as widow of Lekh Ram and no objection was raised by Durga and Sukh Ram. They infact accepted the same and consented to the partition. 21. The documents referred to above contain an admission on the part of the plaintiffs as to the status of Smt. Lachhmi being the widow of Lekh Ram and her being a co-sharer in the joint khata. 22. They infact accepted the same and consented to the partition. 21. The documents referred to above contain an admission on the part of the plaintiffs as to the status of Smt. Lachhmi being the widow of Lekh Ram and her being a co-sharer in the joint khata. 22. The apex Court in Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, AIR 1960 SC 100, while dealing with the question of value of an admission has held :— "An admission is the best evidence that an opposing party can rely upon and though not conclusive, is decisive of the matter, unless successfully withdrawn or proved erroneous." 23. Again in Thiru John v. Returning Officer, AIR 1977 SC 1724, it has been held :—- "It is well settled that a partys admission as defined in sections 17 to 20 fulfilling the requirements of section 21, Evidence Act is substantive evidence proprio vigore. An admission, if clearly and unequivocally made, is the best evidence against the party making it and though not conclusive, shifts the onus on to the maker on the principle that "what a party himself admits to be true may reasonably be presumed to be so and until the presumption was rebutted the fact admitted must be taken to be established" 24. While reiterating the same principle in Avadh Kishore Dass v. Ram Gopal and others, AIR 1979 SC 86 f, it was observed :— “.............It is true that evidentiary admissions are not conclusive proof of the facts admitted and may be explained or shown to be wrong, but they do raise an estoppel and shift the burden of proof on to the person making them or his representative-in-interest. Unless shown or explained to be wrong, they are an efficacious proof of the facts admitted..." 25 Further in Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import, AIR 1981 SC 2085, it has been held that an admission, unless explained, furnishes the best evidence. 26, The learned first appellate Court appears to have overlooked the said material evidence in the form of admissions by the plaintiffs and has drawn unpermissible inferences and has come to the conclusion which on evidence is found utterly unsustainable. 27. 26, The learned first appellate Court appears to have overlooked the said material evidence in the form of admissions by the plaintiffs and has drawn unpermissible inferences and has come to the conclusion which on evidence is found utterly unsustainable. 27. In the present case, no explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the plaintiffs with regard to the above referred to admissions made by them from time to time The plaintiffs themselves have been admitting that the defendant Smt. Lachhmi Devi continued to be the widow of deceased Lekh Ram. Even her right and title in the joint khata was being admitted. 28 Considering the entire evidence in its totality the only irresistible conclusion is that defendant Smt Lachhmi Devi did not remarry defendant Giaru after the death of her husband Lekh Ram 29. Even though admittedly Smt. Lachhmi Devi gave birth to four children after the death of her husband, the same would not prove her remarriage. Such children might be the outcome of her having illicit relations with either Giaru Ram or someone else. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that under the custom prevalent in the community of the parties, a widow loses her rights in the estate of her husband on having become unchaste. 30. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed The impugned judgment and decree dated 29-3-1989 of the first appellate Court are set aside and that of the trial Court dated 11-7-1986 are restored. No orders as to costs. Appeal allowed.