JUDGMENT V.M. Jain, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by Smt. Bachni Devi, plaintiff against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby the suit filed by her was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by her was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge. 2. Smt. Bachni Devi, plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration to the effect that the suit property was owned and possessed by her, being granddaughter of Thainu and that defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had no right, title or interest therein and the revenue entries showing her as legal heir of Thainu, being widow of Barkat were illegal and void and were not binding on the rights of the plaintiff, inasmuch as defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto was not the legal heir of Thainu. It was further alleged that the gift deed dated 9.2.1989 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 in respect of a part of the suit land was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. By way of consequential relief, grant of a decree of permanent injunction was also prayed restraining the defendants from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land and in the alternative, prayer was made for grant of a decree for possession in respect of the suit land. It was alleged that the suit land was owned and possessed by Thainu and that Barkat, father of the plaintiff and husband of defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had pre-deceased his father Thainu in 1957, whereupon defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had remarried Hukma @ Sant Ram in 1959 during the life time of Thainu and that on account of remarriage, she had severed all her connection with the family of Thainu. It was alleged that Thainu had died on 14.7.1960 leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir, being his grand-daughter and she being minor at that time, defendant No. 1 had illegally got mutation of inheritance sanctioned in her favour alongwith the plaintiff in respect of the estate of Thainu, even though, defendant No. 1 had no right to inherit the estate of Thainu, deceased. It was alleged that the entries in the revenue records in favour of defendant No. 1 were illegal and void and ineffective against the rights of the plaintiff and for this reason, the gift deed dated 9.2.1989 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was also illegal and void. 3. In the written statement filed by the defendants various preliminary objections were taken. On merits, it was alleged that after the death of Thainu, his entire estate including the suit land was inherited by the plaintiff and defendant No. 1. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 had remarried Hukma after the death of Thainu i.e. after succeeding to the estate of Thainu to the extent of 1/2 share, while the remaining 1/2 share was succeeded by the plaintiff. It was alleged that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the present suit after such a long time even after attaining the age of majority. It was further alleged that defendant No. 1 was well within her rights to gift away the suit property in favour of defendant No. 2. 4. After hearing both the sides and perusing the record, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had remarried Hukma during the life time of Thainu and that in the revenue record Smt. Jeeto, defendant was recorded as widow of Barkat. Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff could not be held to be the sole surviving legal heir of Thainu and as such, the revenue entries in favour of defendant No. 1 were perfectly legal and valid and as such, the gift deed dated 9.2.1989 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 was also legal and valid. It was further held that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. Resultantly, the suit was dismissed. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge upholding the findings of the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, Smt. Bachni Devi, plaintiff filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 5. Notice was issued to the defendants-respondents and records were also requisitioned. I have the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. Aggrieved against the same, Smt. Bachni Devi, plaintiff filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court. 5. Notice was issued to the defendants-respondents and records were also requisitioned. I have the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully. 6. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant submitted before me that the Courts below had erred in law in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto had married Hukma before the death of Thainu. It was submitted that infact from the evidence available on the record, it was proved that Smt. Jeeto had remarried Hukma in the year 1959 i.e. before the death of Thainu. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant. Thainu, deceased had died on 14.7.1960. The plaintiff can succeed if she is able to show that defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto who was widow of Barkat son of Thainu had remarried Hukma prior to the death of Thainu. A reference in this regard may be placed to the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which provides that any heir who is related to an intestate as the widow of a pre-deceased son, the widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son or the widow of a brother shall not be entitled to succeed to the property of the intestate as such widow, if on the date the succession opens, she has remarried. Admittedly, Smt. Jeeto, defendant No. 1 was the widow of the pre-deceased son of Thainu, inasmuch as according to plaintiff Smt. Bachni Devi son of Thainu had died in the year 1957. If defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto widow of Barkat had remarried Hukma prior to the death of Thainu, then defendant No. 1. Smt. Jeeto would not be entitled to succeed to the estate of Thainu on his death on 14.7.1960, in view of the provisions of Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act. However, in case, she had not remarried before the death of Thainu on 14.7.1960, she would be entitled to succeed to the estate of Thainu, being the widow of a pre-deceased son. Thus, the date of remarriage of defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto with Hukma assumes importance. 7. However, in case, she had not remarried before the death of Thainu on 14.7.1960, she would be entitled to succeed to the estate of Thainu, being the widow of a pre-deceased son. Thus, the date of remarriage of defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto with Hukma assumes importance. 7. While considering the question about the date of marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Thainu, the learned Additional District Judge in paras 11 and 12 of the judgment had considered the entire oral and documentary evidence on the record and thereafter, had come to a definite finding of fact that plaintiff Smt. Bachni Devi had failed to prove about the marriage of defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto with Hukma before the opening of the succession to the estate of Thainu, deceased. It was found that in the plaint, the plaintiff had alleged that Smt. Jeeto had remarried Hukma in the year 1959, during the life time of Thainu and in order to prove this allegation the plaintiff had produced oral and documentary evidence. After considering the entire evidence available on the record, it was found by the learned Additional District Judge that from the said marriage it was not proved on the file that Smt. Jeeto had remarried Hukma prior to the death of Thainu, deceased, which had taken place on 14.7.1960. It was found that neither the oral evidence led by the plaintiff was sufficient to prove the date of marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma during the life time of Thainu not the documentary evidence produced on the record was sufficient to prove the same. It was found that certificate (copy Ext. PW8/A) which was issued by the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat on 27.12.1969 would not prove the marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma in the year 1958 or 1959. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on the record with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. After perusing the same, in my opinion, no fault could be found with the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff had failed to prove remarriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma during the life time of Thainu. Ext. PW8/A has allegedly been proved on the record by PW-8 B.B. Parshad, Senior Account Officer, CCDA (Pensions), Allahabad. According to him, certificate (copy Ext. Ext. PW8/A has allegedly been proved on the record by PW-8 B.B. Parshad, Senior Account Officer, CCDA (Pensions), Allahabad. According to him, certificate (copy Ext. PW8/A) is the true copy of the original certificate lying in the record brought by him in the Court. During the cross-examination, he admitted that the original of the certificate (copy Ext.PW8/A) was not prepared by their office nor it was signed by any officer of their office. Thus, from the testimony of PW-8 B.B. Parshad, authenticity of the certificate (copy Ext. PW8/A) is not proved. Then we are left with the testimony of PW-7 Sadhu Singh, Clerk/ASC Record, Banglore. He deposed that as per the summoned record, Mark-A, available in the said record was the photo copy of the certificate issued by Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Tappa Momi Nihar and that the original certificate may be lying in the CCDA, Allahabad. He proved the letter dated 18.12.1995 issued by the ASC Record as Ext. PW7/A. Thus, even from the testimony of PW-7 Sadhu Singh, Clerk, certificate (copy Ext.PW8/A) could not have been said to be duly proved on the record. Another witness produced by the plaintiff to prove the original of the certificate (copy Ext.PW8/A) is PW-9 Prakash Chand, aged 50 years. His statement was recorded on 10.2.1998 and he made the statement to prove the certificate dated 27.10.1969 allegedly issued by Dalip Singh, Sarpanch. According to this witness, Dalip Singh was the Pradhan of their village Bangana and that he had died about 3-4 years back, but he was not sure. He stated that the original of certificate Ext. PW8/A was bearing the signatures of Dalip Singh, Pradhan and he identified the same. He stated that Dalip Singh remained Pradhan of their village for 10-15 years. During cross-examination, he stated that he had left studies in 4th class and Dalip Singh was not related to him. He stated that the village of Dalip Singh was different and that their houses were at the distance of 1-1/2 K.M. from each other. He stated that the signatures of Dalip Singh also appeared on the application dated 30.9.1996. 8. In my opinion, no reliance whatsoever could be placed on the testimony of PW-9 Prakash Chand to prove the certificate, copy of which is Ext. PW8/A. As referred to above, the above said certificate (topy Ext. He stated that the signatures of Dalip Singh also appeared on the application dated 30.9.1996. 8. In my opinion, no reliance whatsoever could be placed on the testimony of PW-9 Prakash Chand to prove the certificate, copy of which is Ext. PW8/A. As referred to above, the above said certificate (topy Ext. PW8/A) was issued by one Dalip Singh, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tappa Momi Nihar, Tehsil Hamirpur, District Kangra, as deposed by PW-7 Sadhu Singh, Clerk. This would also be clear from the certificate (copy Ext. PW8/ A). However, according to PW-9 Prakash Chand, said certificate was issued by Dalip Singh who was the Pradhan of his village, which is shown as Bangana. Furthermore, according to PW-9 Prakash Chand, said Dalip Singh had died 3-4 years back. (His statement was recorded on 10.2.1998), but he was not sure during cross-examination. He also identified the signatures of Dalip Singh on the application dated 30.9.1996 i.e. just 1-1/2 years earlier. Furthermore, PW-9 Prakash Chand had nowhere stated as to how and in what manner he could identify the signatures of Dalip Singh, Sarpanch, especially when he was from a different village and he was not related to him. PW-9 Prakash Chand had no where stated as to how he is in a position to identify the signatures of Dalip Singh. In this view of the matter, no reliance whatsoever could be placed on the testimony of PW-9 Prakash Chand for proving the certificate (copy Ext.PW-8/A). So far as PW-7 Sadhu Singh, Clerk and PW-8 B.B. Parshad, Senior Account Officer are concerned, in my opinion, the evidence of these witnesses would be neither here nor there to prove the genuineness of the said certificate. 9. A perusal of the certificate (copy Ext. PW8 / A) even otherwise would show that on the basis of the said certificate it could not be said that the marriage of Smt. Jeeto, defendant No. 1 with Hukma prior to the death of Thainu was proved on the record. In the said certificate, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tappa Momi Nihar had certified that one Smt. Jeeto was married to Sant Ram of village Tiar Tappa Momi Nihar, remarriage with Hukma during the life time of Thainu. PW-2 Gharib Singh, Chowkidar had proved the death of Thainu on 14.7.1960 in pursuance of the entry in the register maintained by him. In the said certificate, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Tappa Momi Nihar had certified that one Smt. Jeeto was married to Sant Ram of village Tiar Tappa Momi Nihar, remarriage with Hukma during the life time of Thainu. PW-2 Gharib Singh, Chowkidar had proved the death of Thainu on 14.7.1960 in pursuance of the entry in the register maintained by him. Even PW-2 Garib Singh who is Chowkidar for the last 50 years, admitted during cross-examination that Thainu, deceased had only two legal heirs, namely Jeeto and Bachni and stated that he did not know about the second marriage of Jeeto and also did not know whether she had contracted second marriage or not. He stated that Smt. Jeeto had given birth to two children i.e. one daughter and one son and the son had died, but he did not know from whose loins these children were born. He admitted that Smt. Jeeto was residing in the house of Thainu. In my opinion, from the testimony of PW-2 Garib Singh, Chowkidar, it could not be said that the marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma had taken place prior to the death of Thainu, which took place on 14.7.1960. So far as PW-3 Parkash is concerned, in my opinion, the Courts below had rightly not placed any reliance on the testimony of this witness, since he categorically stated during cross-examination that he did not remember the year when the marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma had taken place. Even otherwise, nothing has come on the record to show that he had any special means of knowledge since he admitted that he had not attended the marriage. Even otherwise, they are from different castes. Similarly, no reliance could be placed on the statement of PW-4 Dalipa, inasmuch as he also showed his ignorance as to when the second marriage had taken place and he stated that he was not present at that time. He had also failed to show any special means of knowledge about the date of marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma. The other oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff is not relevant with regard to the date of marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma. 10. He had also failed to show any special means of knowledge about the date of marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma. The other oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff is not relevant with regard to the date of marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma. 10. In view of the detailed discussion above, in my opinion, both the Courts below had rightly not placed any reliance on the evidence led by the plaintiff with regard to the date of marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma and the plaintiff having failed to prove that the said marriage had taken place during the life time of Thainu, deceased. As referred to above, both the Courts below have rightly found it as a fact that the plaintiff had failed to prove the marriage of Smt. Jeeto with Hukma during the life time of Thainu and no case is made out for interfering with these findings of the fact given by the Courts below, especially when I have myself found, after considering the evidence that this was the only finding which could be given by the Courts below on the basis of the evidence available on the record. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant also submitted before me that the Trial Court had erred in law in holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time. In my opinion, no case is made out for interfering with the finding of the Trial Court in this regard, for two reasons. Firstly, this point was not raised before the learned Additional District Judge during the arguments as would be clear from para-8 of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge. That being so, in my opinion, the plaintiff-appellant now cannot be allowed to urge in the present Regular Second Appeal that the finding of the trial Court on the question regarding limitation was illegal or was liable to be set aside. Secondly, even otherwise, no case is made out for interfering with the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 9 regarding limitation. Admittedly, Thainu had died in the year 1960. Mutation of inheritance in respect of the estate left by Thainu was sanctioned in the year 1961 half and half in favour of plaintiff Smt. Bachni and defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto being the grand-daughter and widow of the pre-deceased son of Thainu. Admittedly, Thainu had died in the year 1960. Mutation of inheritance in respect of the estate left by Thainu was sanctioned in the year 1961 half and half in favour of plaintiff Smt. Bachni and defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto being the grand-daughter and widow of the pre-deceased son of Thainu. In the year 1970 Smt. Bachni Devi, plaintiff had attained majority. Even thereafter till she filed the present suit in the year 1989, no action was taken by the plaintiff to challenge the said mutation in favour of defendant No. 1. In my opinion, the learned Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the present suit for declaration filed by the plaintiff challenging the revenue entries in favour of defendant No. 1 Smt. Jeeto, based on the aforesaid mutation of 1961 was clearly barred by time. I am further of the opinion that no fault could be found with the said finding of the Trial Court. Accordingly, I affirm the finding of the trial Court on Issue No. 9. 12. No other point has been urged before me in this appeal. 13. In view of the detailed discussion above and considering that no question of law muchless any substantial question of law arises for determination in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. CMP No. 141 of 2005 : In view of the dismissal of the main appeal, the stay order shall stand vacated. The application stands disposed of. Appeal dismissed.