A. TALUKDAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS First Appeal is directed against a judgment and decree dated May 29, 1991 passed by Shri B. N. Chandra, learned Judge, Xth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984 thereby dismissing the suit preferred by the Plaintiff/appellant for declaring that the Defendant/respondent is not a lawfully married wife of the Plaintiff/appellant. ( 2 ) SHORN of details the facts giving rise to the First Appeal can be put in a short compass. The plaintiff/appellant filed a plaint on 21-12-94 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta which was transferred for disposal to the file of the learned Judge, Xth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and was registered as Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984. The plaintiff/appellant filed a plaint on 21-12-94 before the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta which was transferred for disposal to the file of the learned Judge, Xth Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta and was registered as Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984. The plaintiff/appellant inter alia prayed : (A)declaration that the plaintiff did not marry the defendant in accordance with law at Dakshineswar or elsewhere on October 19, 1982 or on any other date as incorrectly recorded in a pretended certificate of Registrationof marriage in Schedule 'c' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or at all; (B)declaration that the said pretended application in Schedule 'a' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the said pretended certificate of registration of purported marriage in Schedule 'c' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or at all did not constitute or spell out lawful valid or binding marriage between the parties and is bad in law, null and void, inoperative and not binding on the Plaintiff herein; (C) declaration that the plaintiff is not the lawfully wedded husband of the defendant or the defendant is not the lawfully wedded wife of the Plaintiff or that the defendant is not the wife of the Plaintiff and that the Plaintiff's status has remained unaffected in the facts and incidents of October 19, 1982 and December 4, 1984 or ever since and his status is even now that of a bachelor; (D)cancellation of the pretended certificate of Marriage in Schedule 'c' and the pretended application in Schedule 'a' to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 dated 4th December 1984 or of any other date purporting to record the pretended marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant; (E)decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from ascerting or boasting to the world at large that she is the lawfully wedded wife of the Plaintiff and from using the said purported certificate or registration of the pretended marriage; (F)decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from attacking or challenging the Plaintiff's legal status as a bachelor. ( 3 ) REPUDIATING the case as set out in the plaint of the plaintiff/appellant the Defendant/respondent filed a written statement on 02-7-85 denying all the material allegations of the plaintiff/appellant. ( 3 ) REPUDIATING the case as set out in the plaint of the plaintiff/appellant the Defendant/respondent filed a written statement on 02-7-85 denying all the material allegations of the plaintiff/appellant. It was her case that after a spell of love affair the plaintiff/appellant married her and in the wedlock she conceived twice, however, her conception was aborted and that subsequently she has given birth to a child who is living. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff/appellant in order to prove his case had examined himself as P. W. 1 and his brother-in-law as P. W. 2. ( 5 ) THE Defendant/respondent examined herself as D. W. 1 and the Officer-in-Charge of Diamond Harbour Tourist Centre as D. W. 2 who proved Ext. A which was the entry made in the Visitors' Guest Register of the Tourist Centre which showed that the Plaintiff/appellant and Defendant/respondent checked in the said Tourist Centre on 05-11-83 and described themselves as husband and wife. She also examined the clerk of the District Registrar as D. W. 3. He proved Ext. B original application for registration of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. He also proved Ext. C the registered document containing the signatures of the plaintiff/appellant and the Defendant/respondent. ( 6 ) DURING the proceeding the Title Suit No. 2356 of 1984 apart from the evidence adduced by the parties. Several Exts. were relied by each of them. ( 7 ) THE plaintiff/appellant during his examination proved Ext. 1 which was a document which was scribed by P. W. 1 containing the narration of D. W. 1 with regard to her conception at the instance her eldest step-brother and with a request to take her to a doctor. Ext. 2 was notice of the intended married dated 04-1-84. Ext. 3 was the acknowledgement received back from the Officer-in-Charge of the Dum Dum Police Station of a complaint lodged by the mother of P. W. 1. Ext. 4 was a letter dated 5-12-94 written to the Officer-in-Charge, Muchipara Police Station by P. W. 1. Ext. 5 was the token of the G. D. Entry No. 310 dated 04-12-84. Ext. 6 was a letter dated 19-12-84 written to the Marriage Registrar by the learned lawyer of P. W. 1. Ext. 7 was the out-door ticket dated 04-12-84 of N. R. S. Medical College and Hospital where the P. W. 1 was attended to. Ext. 5 was the token of the G. D. Entry No. 310 dated 04-12-84. Ext. 6 was a letter dated 19-12-84 written to the Marriage Registrar by the learned lawyer of P. W. 1. Ext. 7 was the out-door ticket dated 04-12-84 of N. R. S. Medical College and Hospital where the P. W. 1 was attended to. ( 8 ) D. W. 2 who was the Officer-in-Charge of the Diamond Harbour Tourist Centre proved Ext. A. The entries in the said Tourist Centre on 05-11-83 were that both P. W. 1 and D. W. 1 had checked in by describing themselves as husband and wife. D. W. 3 who was the clerk attached to the Registry Office proved Ext. C, the original application for registration of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act brought from the Office of the District Registrar, Alipore. He also proved Ext. B, the order of the District Registrar by virtue of which he brought the Registered Document being Ext. C. ( 9 ) AT the time of hearing of his Appeal none appeared on behalf of the Defendant/respondent. ( 10 ) SHRI Shyama Prosanna Roy Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Ranajit Choudhury appearing in support of the First Appeal has canvassed several points at the time of the hearing. Shri Roy Choudhury has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Judge in Title Suit No. 2356 of 1989 on the ground that the simple description of the status of wife as reflected from the Hotel Register (Ext. A) will not endow upon D. W. 1 the legal status of a wife. He has contended that a mere recital in any document will not clothe a person with a title. It has been further submitted that the statement made before the Hotel Authorities which is reduced in the Register cannot prevail over the declaration made before the Registering Authority as according to Shri Roy Choudhury in the declaration made before the Hindu Marriage Register and as also the Special Marriage Register status was shown as unmarried. Expanding his argument, Shri Roy Choudhury has also submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have drawn an adverse presumption against the defendant/respondent for shutting out the best evidence and also other available witnesses who if examined would have thrown a completely new light on the entire suit. Expanding his argument, Shri Roy Choudhury has also submitted that the learned Trial Judge ought to have drawn an adverse presumption against the defendant/respondent for shutting out the best evidence and also other available witnesses who if examined would have thrown a completely new light on the entire suit. According to him it was the case of the Defendant/respondent (D. W. 1) that she was married with the Plaintiff/appellant (P. W. 1) after he picked up an acquaintance with her while visiting her eldest brother place at Ichapur in the train which subsequently developed into a romantic relationship and ultimately culminated in their tying the nuptial knot. ( 11 ) THE learned Senior Counsel pointed out that she described that their marriage was solemnized at 'kali Mandir' at Daksineswar while in her written statement she has averred that she was married at the residence of a priest on 19-10-82 after observing all the formalities like performing 'homa' and 'saptapadi'. He further pointed that the Defendant/respondant made a departure from her written statement wherein at Paragraph IX she had categorically stated that the plaintiff/appellant used to come to 'bad yanath Institution' where she was studying in class XI and they were acquianted to each other at that place. ( 12 ) SERIOUS exception was taken by Shri Roy Choudhury to non-examination of the priest of the Daksineswar Temple and also of two gentlemen namely Arjun and Riju who were Commissioner of Dum Dum Municipality and Panchayat Pradhan respectively and were participants in a meeting held to resolve the dispute with regard to the defendant/respondent having conceived where the plaintiff/appellant admitted the marriage and gave assurance he would take her at his residence. ( 13 ) SHRI Roy Choudhury had highlighted that non-examination of the priest and two gentlemen who had participated in the 'shalis' meeting had cast a ring of suspicion over the entire case of the Defendant/respondent. Coupled with this fact, he emphasised very strongly that the marriage ceremony was over; she accompanied by plaintiff/appellant; came to her house for observance of social formalities, thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home where she was received very fairly. But none, however, turned up to depose. Coupled with this fact, he emphasised very strongly that the marriage ceremony was over; she accompanied by plaintiff/appellant; came to her house for observance of social formalities, thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home where she was received very fairly. But none, however, turned up to depose. ( 14 ) SHRI Roy Choudhury further pointed out that she had stated that the plaintiff/appellant was in the habit of frequenting her house and spent nights and that entire family of the plaintiff/appellant was known to her as also his other relatives and that it transpires from her deposition that she had four full brothers and two step-brothers as such what prevented her from examining any of the members of her family or from her purported in-laws' family. ( 15 ) THE learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff/appellant was at a loss to understand as to what prevented the Defendant/respondent from examining those persons more particularly when it transpires from her evidence that at the time of registration of the marriage her elder brother and another friend of her and that of the plaintiff/appellant, attended. ( 16 ) THESE circumstances are very much telling on the conduct of the defendant/respondent onus of proof, according to Shri Roy Choudhuriy shifts but the burden of proof does not shift. The defendant/respondent failed to discharge the said onus and the case of purported marriage built up by her was according to him based on quicksand which did not have any base at all. ( 17 ) SHRI Roy Choudhury has drawn our attention to Ext. 1 which was executed on 07-11-83. He has harped on the said document wherein the Defendant/respondent had confessed that her elder step brother had authored her conception and a friend of her (plaintiff/appellant) was requested to take her to a doctor for aborting the said conception and being persuaded by her she agreed to help her in this regard. The said Ext. 1 executed a sort of a bond that if at the time of the abortion, there was any harm to her nobody would be held responsible. He has shown that the defendant/respondent had twice signed as Minu Biswas-first time in Bengali and then in English. If, according to the defendent/respondent, she was married in 19-10-82 what was the necessity of executing the said document being Ext. 1 after such a long lapse of time. He has shown that the defendant/respondent had twice signed as Minu Biswas-first time in Bengali and then in English. If, according to the defendent/respondent, she was married in 19-10-82 what was the necessity of executing the said document being Ext. 1 after such a long lapse of time. To sum up, Shri Roy Choudhury has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge. ( 18 ) TO fortify his case several citations were relied upon by Shri Roy Choudhuri as a part of his submission. Shri Roy Choudhury in aid of his point has relied on two judgments of the Privy Council. The first one was AIR 1929 Privy Council 95, Rameshwar Singh and Another v. Bajit Lal Pathak and Others where their Lordships of the Judicial Committee held that where best evidence was not produced though available, it raises an adverse presumption and that in consistence and failure to rebut the presumption indicates the falsity of defence and the Appellate Court was competent to reverse a finding. In the second judgment of Privy Council as reported in 47 Calcutta Law Journal page 222 in the case of Seth Maganmal, since deceased, and Another v. Darbarilal Chowdhry the Judicial Committee consisting of Viscount Sumner, Lord Atkinson, Lord Sinha, and Sir John Wallis found that onus lay heavily on the Defendant to prove the defence. Their Lordships of the Judicial Committee further held that "where a party failed to call as his witness the principal person involved in the transac-tion, who was in a position to give a first hand account of the matters in controversy and throw light on them, and who could have refuted on oath the allegations of the other side, and the appellate court drew an inference adverse to the party who thus intentionally kept back his principal witness". ( 19 ) ACCORDING to their Lordships it was a legitimate inference to be drawn. ( 19 ) ACCORDING to their Lordships it was a legitimate inference to be drawn. ( 20 ) SHRI Roy Choudhury in support of his submission with regard to drawing of adverse inference has also relied on AIR 1985 SC 658 Enuga Lakshmamma v. Vennapusa Chinna Mallia Reddy; AIR 1953 SC 225 Hiralal and Others v. Badhulal and Others and also AIR 1981 SC 977 Khushalbhai Mahijibhai Patel v. Afirm of Mohamadhussain Rahimbux and lastly, AIR 1968 SC 148 Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif and Others to show that best evidence was shut out from consideration by the Defendant/respondent and an adverse presumption was liable to be raised against her. ( 21 ) WITH regard to his point that there has not been any proper proof of solemnization of marriage, Shri Roy Choudhury has relied on the case of Smt. Priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra Ghosh as reported in AIR 1971 SC 1153 . He has also relied on AIR 1965 SC 1564 Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Another v. State of Maharashtra and Another and lastly he also relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chittatosh Mookherjee (as his Lordship then was) as reported in 1982 (2) Calcutta Law Journal 360 Krishna Pal and Another v. Ashoke Kumar Pal. ( 22 ) SHRI Roy Choudhury has also furnished an unreported Division Bench Judgment of this Court in F. A. No. 188 of 1997 delivered on 05-2-99 by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nirendra Krishna Mitra (as his Lordship then was) and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yad Ram Meena in the case of Joyita Saha v. Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey to harp on the point that the marriage in this case was not proved to the hilt. ( 23 ) LET us now take up the Plaintiff/appellant's case as appearing from the plaint and through the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and as also from the various documents exhibited by him during the trial. ( 24 ) THE plaintiff/appellant has sought to assail the impugned judgment and decree turning down his prayer for declaration that the defendant/respondent was not married to him and that the Certificate of Registration (Ext. B) be anulled and not binding on him mainly on the ground that he was forcibly taken on 04-12-84 to the Marriage Registrar's Office at 15, Gomes Lane under threat of his life. B) be anulled and not binding on him mainly on the ground that he was forcibly taken on 04-12-84 to the Marriage Registrar's Office at 15, Gomes Lane under threat of his life. It was his case that when he alighted from a bus of route No. 45 at about 8 a. m. in front of the N. R. S. Medical College and Hospital for boarding a train at Sealdah, he was surrounded by the hooligans and two brothers of the defendant/respondent and kept detained in a tea stall behind the Sealdah Fish Market till 11 a. m. and thereafter he was taken to the Office of the Marriage Registrar at 15, Gomes Lane where he was forced to sign on several papers including two blank papers at about 3-30 pm. ( 25 ) THEREAFTER, according to the Plaintiff/appellant he was released and he took a taxi and went to his sister's house (wife of P. W. 2) at Ballygunj. He, however, dithered and said that after his release, he first went to the Muchipara Police Station and lodged a written Diary and from there he went to the N. R. S. Medical College and Hospital for being treated medically and he lodged the complaint at the Muchipara Police Station (G. D. Entry No. 310 dated 04-12-84) (Ext. 5 ). ( 26 ) THEREAFTER, on the next date 05-12-84 he wrote a written complaint to the Muchipara Police Station (Ext. 4 ). ( 27 ) IT is the further case of the plaintiff/appellant that on 05-7-83 there was a meeting between the members of the family after he expressed his inclination to marry the defendant/respondent. However, on 08-7-83 he discovered an illicit relationship between the Defendant/respondent and her eldest step-brother. The plaintiff/appellant protested against this and in November 1983 on a particular day when he was returning from office, the Defendant/respondent met him and begged forgiveness procrastinated before him and requested the plaintiff/appellant to take her to a doctor and as she was carrying and admitted that her eldest step-brother was responsible for the conception and on the request of the Defendant/respondent her entrities were reduced into writing and the document was marked as Ext. 1 which was dated 07-11-93. ( 28 ) THEREAFTER, it also transpires that on 04-1-84 the plaintiff/appellant caused a notice under the Special Marriage Act, with a view to marry the defendant/respondent on 04-1-84. 1 which was dated 07-11-93. ( 28 ) THEREAFTER, it also transpires that on 04-1-84 the plaintiff/appellant caused a notice under the Special Marriage Act, with a view to marry the defendant/respondent on 04-1-84. The notice was marked as Ext. 2, however, according to him the marriage was not registered since on 05-2-84 on a visit to his house he found her in an illicit relationship with her youngest step-brother and on 17-11-84 a meeting was held in their locality as the defendant/respondent came to the place the gave out that the plaintiff/appellant was responsible for her conception and a scene was created wherein the plaintiff/appellant stoutly denied about the said conception and he further refused to agree with the proposal of marriage. ( 29 ) ACCORDING to us Ext. 2 does not merit any consideration at all. Since we are satisfied from the evidence of D. W. 1 (defendant/respondent) that she was married with the plaintiff/appellant on October 19, 1982. From the evidence of D. W. 1, it further transpires that after the marriage they went to Diamond Harbour and had been to Sagarika Lodge at Diamond Harbour on four occasions during the month of April, May August and September and to Digha for 'honey moon'. ( 30 ) D. W. 1 has further spoken about her conception and the delivery of a child who was 4 years old at the time of her deposition. During her cross-examination, she stood as firm as a rock and could not be shakened. We are unable to persuade ourselves to the contentions of Shri Roy Choudhuriy that if the defendant/respondent was married in 1982 how could Ext. 2, the notice for intended marriage which was dated 04-1-84 be issued by the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondent together and more so when the Defendant/respondent signed as Minu Biswas (her maiden name ). Shri Roy Choudhury by relying on Ext. 2 has sought to dispel the claim of the defendant/respondent with regard to her marriage with the plaintiff/appellant and also tried to fortify that there was no marriage between them and disowned the entire case of the defendant/respondent including her conception. Notwithstanding the fact that in Ext. 2, the defendant/respondent had signed as Minu Biswas (her maiden name), we are unable to attach much value to the said piece of evidence. Notwithstanding the fact that in Ext. 2, the defendant/respondent had signed as Minu Biswas (her maiden name), we are unable to attach much value to the said piece of evidence. ( 31 ) IT would also be worth while to recalled that in her cross-examination D. W. 1 stated that : "i did not fill up the form submitted before the Marriage Registrar. I simply signed it without going through it. " The very conduct of the defendant/respondent inspires us to believe that she innocently signed on the application at the behest of the plaintiff/appellant whose conduct we do have seen from the foregoing discussion was not above board and in our opinion not only did he try to take advantage of the innocence of a helpless girl but having exploited her, left her at large and disowned the truth of his amorous activities. ( 32 ) FROM the surrounding facts and circumstances of the instant case and the evidence of the D. W. 1 that they had gone to Digha and also to Diamond Harbour after their marriage and the failure of the plaintiff/appellant to rebut the presumption with regard to the evidence led by the defendant/respondent about their stay at Diamond Harbour and Digha and with regard to her conception we are satisfied that Ext. 2 does not help the plaintiff/appellant in any manner. ( 33 ) A clinical analysis of the deposition of P. W. 1 read in conjunction with Ext. 1, Ext. 2 and Ext. 7 and as also Ext. A manifests the utter falsity of the entire case. ( 34 ) IN our opinion, Ext. 1 which was executed on 07-11-83 wherein her request to the Plaintiff/appellant for helping for securing abortion which was occasioned at the instance of her elder brother be accepted as true then it is very hard to reconcile with Ext. A which is extract of visitor's Register, Diamond-Harbour Tourist Centre. It appears that on 05-11-83 both the plaintiff/appellant and the defendant/respondent had checked in the said Tourist Centre and the defendant/respondent was described as wife. If Ext. 1 and Ext. A are matched together it would be seen that both the plaintiff/appellant and the Defendant/respondent had checked in at the Diamond-Harbour Tourist Centre on 05-11-83 then the story of execution of the document on 07-11-83 which was marked as Ext. 1 as discussed above cannot be accepted as true. If Ext. 1 and Ext. A are matched together it would be seen that both the plaintiff/appellant and the Defendant/respondent had checked in at the Diamond-Harbour Tourist Centre on 05-11-83 then the story of execution of the document on 07-11-83 which was marked as Ext. 1 as discussed above cannot be accepted as true. ( 35 ) IN our view having gone to the Diamond Harbour Tourist Centre with the defendant/respondent on 05-11-83 and checking in the said Tourist Centre as husband and wife, it was highly improbable that Ext. 1 that just two days after the defendant/respondent would come and assign her conception to her elder brother and request the plaintiff/appellant to take her for causing her abortion. ( 36 ) D. W. 1 categorically denies that the writing the Ext. 1 was at her dictation. In her cross-examination also she categorically denied the suggestion that Ext. 1 was written as per her dictation. ( 37 ) THUS we completely disbelieve Ext. 1 and the evidence of PW 1 in this respect upon evaluation of the evidence of PW 1 and ext. 1. We find that PW 1 made unsuccessful attempts to cover up his escapades and the defendant/respondent a defenceless woman had fallen prey to his designs. We have no hesitation to disbelieve PW 1 and accordingly believe the Defendant/respondent. ( 38 ) WE also find that Ext. 2 which was the notice for intended marriage between the parties before the Special Marriage Registrar was also quite in the fitness of things and we have no reason to hold that it was at the behest of the defendant/respondent under duress or threat since the utter falsity of the case of the Plaintiff/appellant is reflected from a consideration of Ext. A and Ext. 1 we have no reason to disbelieve Ext. 2. ( 39 ) IN our considered view Ext. 1 is completely a manufactured document and the signature of the Defendant/respondent was taken on a blank paper where the plaintiff/appellant was reduced into writing with regard to her conception at the instance of her elder brother and a request for her abortion in order to cover up his amorous relationship and put up a play for denial of future relationship including the marriage. We attach no importance to the said document (Ext. 1) and discard it. ( 40 ) ON the contrary, we have given credence to Ext. We attach no importance to the said document (Ext. 1) and discard it. ( 40 ) ON the contrary, we have given credence to Ext. 2, notice for intended marriage and fully disbelieve the evidence of P. W. 1 that he was forcibly detained by persons attached to the defendant/respondent and thereafter compelled to sign under duress on blank papers. We also do not attach any value to Ext. 6, the letter of the learned lawyer of the plaintiff/appellant writing to the Marriage Registrar on 19-12-84 intimating about factum of registration under captive circumstances as in our view it was a belated exercise to cover up the entire episode. ( 41 ) THE evidence of P. W. 2 is not only hearsay in nature but does not also in any way, in our view help the plaintiff/appellant. If we see the evidence of P. W. 1 with regard to his detention at the hands of the persons of the defendant/respondent, it appears that immediately after his release he went to the residence of P. W. 2 which was resiled by him and was stated he directly went to the Muchipara Police Station. P. W. 2 states that P. W. 1 rushed to his house after his release and he accompanied with P. W. 1 went to the Muchipara Police Station and a Diary was lodged. ( 42 ) P. W. 2 further deposed that he accompanies P. W. 1 to the N. R. S. Medical College and Hospital. ( 43 ) A perusal of Ext. 7, treatment, sheet of N. R. S. Medical College and Hospital shows that P. W. 1 was brought to the Hospital by one, Dr. Ashim Moitra of the same address of P. W. 1. The name of P. W. 2 does not appear in Ext. 7 and in view of the discrepency in the evidence of the P. W. 1 with regard to his going to P. W. 2's house and resiling the same and saying that he first went to the Muchipara Police Station which was contradicted by P. W. 2. We find that the plaintiff/appellant's case is laced with falsity and the evidence of P. W. 2 is totally left out of our consideration. We find that the plaintiff/appellant's case is laced with falsity and the evidence of P. W. 2 is totally left out of our consideration. ( 44 ) THE plaintiff/appellant has to prove his case first and then only the burden shifts to the Defendant/respondent to discharge the onus, after considering the evidence and other materials on record, we find that the same does not inspire any confidence and in our view the plaintiff/appellant has hopelessly failed to prove his case and as such drawing any adverse presumption against the defendant/respondent does not, in the facts and circumstances, arise at all and accordingly we find no merit in this Appeal and consequently dismiss the same and affirm the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. ( 45 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be, however, no order as to costs. B. Bhattacharya, J.-I had the advantage of going through the judgment delivered by my learned brother in advance. I respectfully agree with the findings recorded and the conclusion arrived at by My lord. However, in view of the importance of some of the points raised by Mr. Roychowdhury, appearing for the appellant, I propose to make a few observations of my own. ( 46 ) IN my opinion, the plaintiff has tried to impose upon an absurd story which is hard to believe. Moreover, the facts pleaded by the plaintiff will appear to be absolutely false from the materials on record. ( 47 ) ACCORDING to the plaint case there was a love affair between the parties and on July 5, 1983 in the presence of the father of the plaintiff and the mother and other elderly persons of the family of the defendant the marriage negotiation was settled. However, three days thereafter, on July 8, 1983, the plaintiff discovered "amorous intimacy" between the defendant and her eldest step brother and decided to break off the said engagement and consequently the marriage negotiation was cancelled. However, in the month of November, 1983, the defendant confided before him that her eldest step brother had impregnated her and sought for his help for immediate abortion. The plaintiff "out of milk of human kindness" agreed to help her on condition that she would make a clean breast of the correct fact on a bond lest he is not entangled in future complication. The plaintiff "out of milk of human kindness" agreed to help her on condition that she would make a clean breast of the correct fact on a bond lest he is not entangled in future complication. The defendant having signed on such a bond on a stamp paper (Ext.-1), the plaintiff made all arrangements of termination of the pregnency in a local nursing home. After the aforesaid incident, the plaintiff's heart was filled with magnanimity, as a result, he condoned her past conduct and on a promise by the defendant to be faithful in future, gave a joint notice under Special Marriage Act on January 4, 1984 for an intended marriage. However, on February 5, 1984 the plaintiff again caught the defendant red handed in a compromising manner and this time with her third step brother viz. Rudra Narayan and such fact prompted him to resile from the decision to enter into proposed matrimony with the defendant and he severed all future relation with her. Ultimately, on December 4, 1984 he was compelled to sign in the Marriage Register admitting marriage with the defendant as mentioned in details by my learned brother in his judgement. ( 48 ) I will now proceed to consider whether plaintiff has been able to prove the aforesaid facts including the incident of December 4, 1984. ( 49 ) SO far the incident of December 4, 1984 is concerned, although the plaintiff alleged that he was lifted from the bus stoppage on the point of revolver, razor etc. , there is no material to show that any criminal case was started against those persons. The plaintiff himself admitted in his cross-examination that apart from lodging a G. D. against those persons he did not file any other case against them. In his examination-in-chief, initially he stated that after being released on December 4, 1984, he first went by a taxi to his sister's residence at Ballygunge. But immediately thereafter he rectified himself by asserting that immediately after being released, he first went to Muchipara Police Station and lodged the G. D. and from Police Station he went to Nilratan Sirkar Medical College and Hospital for being treated as he was having pain on his head. Curiously enough, in cross-examination he stated that he first went to Ballygunge and then went to Muchipara Police Station and thereafter he went to Nilratan Sirkar Medical College. Curiously enough, in cross-examination he stated that he first went to Ballygunge and then went to Muchipara Police Station and thereafter he went to Nilratan Sirkar Medical College. P. W.-2, the brother-in-law of the plaintiff has stated that he took the plaintiff first to Muchipara Police Station and then to Nilratan Sirkar Medical College after he came to Ballygunge from the Marriage Register's Office. Ext.-7 (a), ticket given at N. R. S. Hospital, shows that the plaintiff was brought by Dr. Ashim Moitra, the elder brother of the plaintiff to the Hospital at about 6-45 P. M. on December 4, 1984. The plaintiff has neither alleged in the plaint nor in deposition that his elder brother brought him to the Hospital. ( 50 ) IT goes without saying that by Ext.-7 (a), it is only proved that Dr. Asim Moitra of 52, Kabi Mukunda Das Road, Dum Dum presented a person alleged to be one Sankar Moitra before the Emergency Room for the alleged incident. But without the evidence the doctor or other persons present there, the veracity of the statement recorded in Ext.-7 (a) was not proved. Even no reason has been disclosed why Dr. Ashim Moitra was not examined. The case of the defendant is that the plaintiff of his own signed in the Marriage Register and there was no incident of any force or coercion on December 4, 1984. In view of the aforesaid materials on record, I am at one with my learned brother that the plaintiff failed to prove the alleged incident of December 4, 1984. ( 51 ) NEXT comes the question of execution of Ext.-1. The said document is written on a stamp paper dated October 31, 1983. It is admittedly in the handwriting of the plaintiff but followed by the signature of the defendant both in Bengali and English. The document is executed on November 7, 1983. The specific case of the plaintiff is that after July 8, 1983 when he discovered illicit relation of the defendant with his eldest step brother he had no relation with defendant till November 7, 1983 when she approached the plaintiff for his help for terminating the pregnency caused by her step brother. The defendant has denied the aforesaid allegation and has contended that she was made pregnant by the plaintiff and before abortion her signatures were taken on blank stamp paper. The defendant has denied the aforesaid allegation and has contended that she was made pregnant by the plaintiff and before abortion her signatures were taken on blank stamp paper. In cross-examination of the plaintiff, specific suggestions were given that in April, May, August and September, 1983 the plaintiff took the defendant to Sagarika Hotel, Diamond Harbour but the plaintiff could not deny such suggestion. He simply stated that he could not remember if he went to Diamond Harbour with the defendant. Exts.-A and A (1) are the extracts from the Visitors' Register of Diamond Harbour Tourist Centre, showing that the plaintiff and defendant stayed there on November 5, 1983 and December 28, 1983 by describing themselves as husband and wife. The plaintiff did not dispute his signature on Exts.-A and A (1 ). They were described as Sankar Maitra and Minoo 'moitra'. In view of the aforesaid fact it is clear that throughout the year 1983 they had connections and had even stayed in hotels as husband and wife. Therefore, the story made out in the plaint that from July 8, 1983 till November 7, 1983 the plaintiff had no connection with the defendant is absolutely false. The plaintiff did not hesitate to give false allegation against the step brother of the defendant in order to avoid the responsibility of paternity of the child. Therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that the plaintiff manufactured Ext.-1 after obtaining signature of the defendant on the blank stamps paper. ( 52 ) THERE is no dispute that the defendant has given birth to a female child in November, 1984. The plaintiff in order to deny the responsibility has made out a case that in the month of February, 1984 he found illicit connection of the defendant with another step brother of the defendant with another brother of the defendant and thereafter he had no connection with the defendant. It may be mentioned here that specific suggestion of the defendant that the parties lived together in room no. 19 at 'sea Hawk' hotel, Digha between January 24, and January 28, 1984 was not denied. In cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that on April 25, 1984 the defendant withdrew money from her bank account in Gorabazar branch of United Bank of India and in her withdrawal application he identified her. 19 at 'sea Hawk' hotel, Digha between January 24, and January 28, 1984 was not denied. In cross-examination, the plaintiff admitted that on April 25, 1984 the defendant withdrew money from her bank account in Gorabazar branch of United Bank of India and in her withdrawal application he identified her. The aforesaid piece of evidence belies his statement that after February, 1984 he had no connection with the defendant. Over and above, no reasonable person will believe his case that keeping the doors open, the defendant will be in compromising situation first with his eldest step brother and then with another step brother inviting the plaintiff to witness such incidents. From the materials on record I am left with no other alternative but to conclude that the plaintiff is an unconscionable lair devoid of all moral sanctions. The plaintiff having failed to prove his case, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit. ( 53 ) MR. Roychowdhury strenuously contended that the two step brothers of the defendant having failed to face the witness box, adverse presumption should be drawn against the defendant for withholding best witnesses who could disprove the allegation of the plaintiff. I am afraid, the aforesaid contention is not tenable. The power of drawing adverse inference is a discretionary one. Such inference can be taken when there is no other materials on record. When from the materials on record it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff has made a false case, no adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of the two step brothers of the defendant. ( 54 ) SIMILARLY, I do not find any force in the contention of Mr. Roychowdhury that giving of a notice of intended marriage under Special Marriage Act, on January 4, 1984 conclusively proves that there was no marriage between the parties till that day. As pointed out earlier, in the register of the Tourist Centre, Diamond Harbour, the plaintiff himself has described the defendant as 'minoo Moitra', his wife, on November 5, 1983 and December 28, 1983 which proves the case of the defendant that they were already married according to Hindu rites at Dakshineswar Temple earlier. The conduct of the plaintiff although indicates that he was trying to get rid of the defendant on one pretext or the other had even went to the extent of manufacturing document for that purpose. The conduct of the plaintiff although indicates that he was trying to get rid of the defendant on one pretext or the other had even went to the extent of manufacturing document for that purpose. Under the aforesaid circumstance, if the defendant put her signature on the notice of intended marriage under Special Marriage Act on the assurance of the plaintiff, she cannot be estopped from taking the plea of earlier marriage according to Hindu rites which such fact has also been admitted by the plaintiff in Exits. A and A (1 ). Moreover, after performing a marriage under Hindu rites if the parties give notice of marriage under Special Marriage Act, the earlier marriage is not dissolved nor can a court ignore the earlier valid marriage on that ground alone. At any rate, plaintiff having failed to prove that his signature on the Hindu Marriage Act Register on December 4, 1984 was obtained by coercion and the entire plaint allegation having been proved to be false, the suit was rightly dismissed. ( 55 ) THE unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court in the case of Joyita Saha v. Rajesh Kumar Pandey in F. A. No. 188 of 1997, in my view, is of no avail to the appellant. In that case, the Division Bench relied upon the evidence of the priest who figuring as D. W.-2 clearly said that no 'saptapadi' or 'sampradan' was performed. Inspite of such evidence, he was not declared hostile by the defendant. Ultimately, the Division Bench held that the sole object of the defendant was to get the plaintiff under his clutches to fulfil his evil design to get considerable amount from the plaintiff's parents. Therefore, the said decision cannot have any application to the fact of the present case. ( 56 ) I am unable to subscribe to the last contention of Mr. Roychowdhury that in a suit of this nature even if the plaintiff fails to prove his case as made out in the plaint the suit should be decreed unless the defendant proves by adequate evidence the performance of Saptapadi, Hom and other essential requirements of a Hindu Marriage. As indicated earlier, the plaintiff could not even discharge the initial onus so that the court could call upon the defendant to prove the essentials of a Hindu Marriage. As indicated earlier, the plaintiff could not even discharge the initial onus so that the court could call upon the defendant to prove the essentials of a Hindu Marriage. Thus, I respectfully agreed with my learned brother that this appeal is devoid of any substance. After this judgment was delivered Mr. Chaudhury, learned Advocate for the appellant prays for stay of operation of the order passed by us. Such prayer is refused. Appeal dismisse.