JUDGMENT Honble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Shri Ashish Kumar Singh and Sri A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant at length and Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Amrendra Singh for the respondents. 2. The dispute in the present second appeal is in respect of the properties left behind by the so called Mahant Bisheshwar Das who expired on 23.12.1975. 3. The plaintiff respondent Sri 108 Pujyapad Advait Panch Parmeshwar Akhara Bara Udaseen Kydganj, Allahabad through its Mahant Sarju Das Chela Baba Sewa Das Ji as Secretary instituted original suit No. 94 of 1976 against the defendant appellants namely Smt. Rani Devi, Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Krishna Kumar for declaration that the plaintiff be declared the actual owner of house No. 3 Lowther Road (South Malaka), Allahabad and all the bank deposits mentioned in Schedule ‘Ka’ at the foot of the plaint which include a fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000/- dated 22.12.1975 in the joint name of late Bisheshwar Das and Krishna Kumar (defendant No. 3) and for eviction of the defendants from the aforesaid house. 4. The suit was instituted on the allegation that the plaintiff Panchayati Akhara represented by its mahant is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act. Late Bisheshwar Das was an “udaseen sadhu” and the chela of mahant Dhuni Das. He was a Mukami Mahant (stationed at one place) of the Panchayati Akhara and was its general secretary since 1954 which post he continuously held till his death. Since he was a sadhu, Mahant of the Akhara and the Secretary of the society, all his properties are the properties of the Akhara. He had remained unmarried throughout his life as per the tenets and customs of the Akhara, as such the defendants have no concern with the properties left behind by him. The defendant No. 1 is falsely claiming herself to be his wife, defendant No. 2 as his daughter and the defendant No. 3 as his ‘Nati’ (daughter’s son) on the basis of a succession certificate for which application for revocation has already been moved by the plaintiff. It was further contended that late Bisheshwar Das himself accepted the house in dispute with which he has no concern to be the property of the Akhara vide registered deed dated 23.1.1961 executed by him. 5. It was further contended that late Bisheshwar Das himself accepted the house in dispute with which he has no concern to be the property of the Akhara vide registered deed dated 23.1.1961 executed by him. 5. The suit was contested by the defendants alleging that the aforesaid properties in dispute were the personal properties of late Bisheshwar Das with which the Akhara or the Society has no connection whatsoever. The house in dispute was recorded in the name of Bisheshwar Das and not as the property of the Akhara. The said Bisheshwar Das had once proclaimed himself to be a sadhu but he had severed his connections with the sadhu samaj though continued to work with the Akhara. He married defendant No.1 Smt. Rani Devi from which wedlock defendant No. 2 Smt. Shakuntala Devi was born. Krishna Kumar defendant No. 3 is son of Smt. Shakuntala Devi. Therefore, on his death the defendants are his natural successors who have inherited the properties. It was also contended that though he was serving the Akhara and continued to be the member of the Society there was no bar upon him to marry as per the customs of the Akhara as several similar persons connected with the Akhara were keeping wives. A will dated 13.12.1975 was also set up which was alleged to have been executed by late Bisheshwar Das in favour of the defendant No. 1. 6. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the plaintiff Akhara is owner of the properties in suit? (2) Whether the defendants are absolute owners of the properties in suit? (3) Whether Sri Bisheshwar severed his relationship with sadhu samaj and became Grihasth and married Smt. Rani Devi alias Pandit and a daughter Smt. Shakuntala Devi alias Kunti was born out of that union? (4) Whether Sri Bisheshwar executed a will dated 13.12.1975 in favour of Smt. Rani Devi regarding the properties in suit, if so, its effect? (5) Whether Sri Bisheshwar Das continued to be virakt sadhu and a member of the plaintiff, till his death? (6) Whether suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10, CPC as alleged in para 26 of the written statement? (7) Whether the defendants are liable to be ejected from a portion of the house in dispute? (8) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages from the defendants? (6) Whether suit is liable to be stayed under Section 10, CPC as alleged in para 26 of the written statement? (7) Whether the defendants are liable to be ejected from a portion of the house in dispute? (8) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the damages from the defendants? If so, at what rate? (9) To what relief, is that plaintiff entitled. (10) Whether there is religious custom and rules and regulation of the said Society that “udasin sadhu” cannot marry any one till so long as he is a “udasin sadhu” and is member of the Society he has to be Brahmachari? 7. The prominent issues touching the’ merits were Issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 10. The Court of first instance while deciding the aforesaid issues held that late Bisheshwar Das was a Sadhu, Mahant of the Akhara and he continued to be its Secretary till his death. Therefore, he never severed his connections with the sadhu samaj as alleged and he died as a sadhu. Accordingly, he was not supposed to marry and there was no evidence sufficient enough to establish his marriage with Smt. Rani Devi. A further finding was returned that in view of the registered deed dated 23.1.1961 (Exhibit 6) coupled with the fact that late Bisheshwar Das was a sadhu/mahant of the Akhara, the ownership of the properties stand vested in the plaintiff and therefore defendants have no right, title and interest in any of the said properties and are not entitle to live in the house in dispute. The unregistered will set up the defendants was not found to be proved. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment, order and decree of the trial Court dated 30.1.1981, the defendants preferred First Appeal No. 79 of 1981 before the High Court which was subsequently transferred to the Court of Addl. District Judge, Allahabad on account of low valuation for decision as civil appeal. During the pendency of the civil appeal Smt. Rani Devi died and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were allowed to represent her as well being her heirs and legal representatives. The appeal was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3.5.2003 and the decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed. 9. During the pendency of the civil appeal Smt. Rani Devi died and the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were allowed to represent her as well being her heirs and legal representatives. The appeal was ultimately dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3.5.2003 and the decree passed by the trial Court was affirmed. 9. Thus, the defendant-appellants have approached this Court by means of this second appeal assailing both the judgments, orders and the decree passed by the two Courts below. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has basically made two submissions. First, late Bisheshwar Das was not a sanyasi and that even if it is assumed that he was a sanyasi or a sadhu he had severed all his connections with the sadhu samaj/ Akhara and had re-entered in the Grihast Ashram after marrying with defendant No. 1. Secondly, that the Memorandum of the Society/Akhara which provides that all properties of sadhu would be the properties of the Akhara is unlawful and violative of Article 31 now 300-A of the Constitution of India. 11. It would be appropriate for me to first examine the factum of marriage of late Bisheshwar Das with Smt. Rani Devi. 12. Marriage as understood in common Hindu parlance is a sacred union between a male and a female of a marriageable age. Both under customary Hindu Law as well as under Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 two ceremonies are essential for a valid marriage in Hindus namely, (1) invocation before the sacred fire; and (2) ‘Saptapadi’ i.e. 7 steps before the sacred fire. The marriage is completed with the taking of the 7th step. It is not necessary to get the marriages of Hindus registered, but Section 8 of the above Act provides for Registration of Hindu Marriages. A marriage may also be solemnized before the Registrar between two such persons under the Special Marriage Act, 1954. 13. Apart from the above, there can also be a presumption of a valid marriage if the parties are found to be living together and are recognised as husband and wife by all concerned and also by important documents conducted thereto. 14. However, it is an acknowledged principle of law that the marriage has to be proved by the persons alleging the marriage. In the instant case, it is Smt. Rani Devi who is alleging that she was married to late Bisheshwar Das. 14. However, it is an acknowledged principle of law that the marriage has to be proved by the persons alleging the marriage. In the instant case, it is Smt. Rani Devi who is alleging that she was married to late Bisheshwar Das. Therefore, the burden to prove the marriage is squarely upon her. It may be noted that she is not alleging marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 or its registration under Section 8 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1956. She has neither pleaded nor adduced any evidence with regard to performance of the above two essential ceremonies for a valid Hindu Marriage. She has not produced any witness who has seen the solemnization of their marriage except DW 5 Raj Bali Prasad Sharma but his evidence was held to be in conflict with that of other the witnesses and as such was not found to be trustworthy. None of other witnesses produced by her could also prove the factum of marriage. On the other hand, her own statement reveals that she was earlier married one Govind Prasad on whose death she had allegedly married late Bisheshwar Das. According to her statement recorded on 13.12.1976 under Order X Rule 2, C.P.C., her marriage with late Bisheshwar Das took place 30 years ago i.e. in 1946 whereas even then she continued to describe herself as widow of Govind Prasad in all material documents. One such document being a sale deed dated 10.1.1961 under which she had purchased land 13 years ago from one Gauri Shankar. In one another document paper No. 46-A even late Bisheshwar Das had described her as Smt. Rani Devi, wife of Govind Prasad Pandey which document is admitted to her. Besides, the electoral rolls of 1967, 1970 and 1975, copy of the assessment of Nagar Maha Palika for the period 1972-1977 of house No. 16/26 Sobatiabagh, Allahabad also describe her as Smt. Rani Devi widow of Govind Prasad, leave alone the documents pertaining to the agricultural property inherited by her from her previous husband Govind Prasad. Thus, the Courts below after careful consideration of all the evidence on record have returned a clear finding that there is no proof of any marriage of Smt. Rani Devi with late Bisheshwar Das. Thus, the Courts below after careful consideration of all the evidence on record have returned a clear finding that there is no proof of any marriage of Smt. Rani Devi with late Bisheshwar Das. This is a pure finding of fact and no perversity in the same has been established even if the minor discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses as to the exact year of the marriage are ignored. In Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya and others, AIR 1959 SC 57 it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below, howsoever, wrong may be, is not liable to be interfered in the second appeal and this dictum has been followed by catena of authorities even till date, the latest being AIR 2006 SC 1975 , Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki and others. In Gurdev Kaur (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under : “It must be clearly understood that the legislative intention was very clear that legislature never wanted second appeal to become “third trial on facts” or one more dice in the gamble”. 15. It means that the factual aspects which have already been considered and decided by the Courts below cannot be gone into in the second appeal which is required to be adjudicated only on the basis of substantial question of law. Accordingly, I am of the view that the finding of the Courts that Smt. Rani Devi has failed to prove her marriage with late Bisheshwar Das cannot be reconsidered and distributed in second appeal in the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above. 16. Once the said finding stands affirmed, the defendants are clearly not entitle to inherit the properties specially the house in dispute which was allegedly owned by late Bisheshwar Das at one point of time. 17. Now, the question arises about the ownership of the house in dispute. It is admitted that the sale deed of the said house is in the name of late Bisheshwar Das. However, by Ext. 6 which is a registered deed dated 23.1.1961 he accepts in unequivocal terms that the house in dispute is the property of the Akhara and he personally has no right over it. Thus, in a way he relinquished all his rights, title and interest in the said house in favour of the Akhara by the said deed. However, by Ext. 6 which is a registered deed dated 23.1.1961 he accepts in unequivocal terms that the house in dispute is the property of the Akhara and he personally has no right over it. Thus, in a way he relinquished all his rights, title and interest in the said house in favour of the Akhara by the said deed. The execution of the said deed dated 23.1.1961 (Ex. 6) is not disputed by the defendants. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid deed itself the ownership of the house stand vested in the plaintiff. 18. In view of the aforesaid facts, once it was established that Smt. Rani Devi was not legally married to late Bisheshwar Das and that he himself had relinquished his rights in the house in dispute in favour of the plaintiff, I am of the view that the suit of the plaintiff was liable to succeed on these counts alone and there was no necessity of going into the ordeal, as to whether late Bisheshwar Das was a sadhu/sanyasi or he continued to be as such till his death or has severed his relationship with sadhu samaj or has returned to the ‘Grehasta Ashram’. 19. However, as regards the status of late Bisheshwar Das it is admitted to the defendants that he himself has proclaimed to be a sadhu’ at one point of time and had adorned the mahantship of the ‘Akhara’ as well as the post of secretary, the office/post he held till his marriage with Smt. Rani Devi, though the date of marriage has not been specified. In view of the aforesaid, the Courts below proceeded on the assumption that late Bisheshwar Das was admittedly a ‘sadhu’ at one point of time and, therefore, the only question which was to be determined was, whether he ever re-entered ‘Grehasta Ashram’. On the said point the Courts below on the basis of the evidence on record held that sufficient evidence was not adduced to establish that he ever severed his relationship with the Akhara. In fact it is admitted to the defendants that he continued to serve as Secretary of the same till his death. The witnesses of the plaintiffs have categorically stated that late Bisheshwar Das never left the Akhara or seized to be its Mukami Mahant/General Secretary during his life. In fact it is admitted to the defendants that he continued to serve as Secretary of the same till his death. The witnesses of the plaintiffs have categorically stated that late Bisheshwar Das never left the Akhara or seized to be its Mukami Mahant/General Secretary during his life. The certified copy issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Society paper No. 21-A also describes late Bisheshwar Das was the ‘Mukami Mahant/General Secretary’ of the Akhara/society till 1975. Accordingly, there is apparently no error on part of the Courts below in holding that he had not severed his connections with the ‘Akhara’ or had ceased to be a ‘sadhu’. 20. In short my considered conclusion is that even if the house in dispute was purchased by late Bisheshwar Das in his own name vide registered sale deed dated 16.4.1959 the same shall not devolve upon the defendants in view of the registered deed dated 23.1.1981 by which he had surrendered or relinquished all his rights therein in favour of the plaintiff, irrespective of the fact that he was a sadhu, a mahant or the secretary or even if he had taken Smt. Rani Devi as his wife. 21. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the provisions in the memorandum of the society providing that the properties of the ‘sadhu’ would be properties of the ‘Akhara’ is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution. I may record that from the pleadings and the issues framed, it appears that neither any such point was involved in the suit nor was it raised. No such issue was actually framed by the Court of first instance in this regard. It is an acknowledged principle of law that a suit should be decided on the issues involved and framed and the Court is not supposed to decide anything else beyond the issues. At the same time, it is not obligatory upon the Court to enter into any issue which is of academic nature. However, from the judgment of the lower appellate Court, I find that the above point was raised by the defendants for the first time in appeal but the lower appellate Court in view of the deed dated 23.1.1961 held that as late Bisheshwar Das has himself surrendered his rights in the house in favour of the plaintiff, the point looses all relevance. I am in agreement with the same. I am in agreement with the same. The point is only academic in nature and is not based upon the pleadings. Therefore, when the rights of the contesting parties in the suit/appeal can easily be decided finally on other points there is no compulsion to enter into the above controversy and to decide the same. 22. In the end a faint effort has been made and it has been contended that the FDR in dispute of Rs. 20000/- with the bank was admittedly in the name of late Bisheshwar Das and Krishna Kumar and since it was to be operated by either of the survivor, the said Krishna Kumar having survived late Bisheshwar Das was legally entitle to withdraw the said amount. 23. In this connection Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents has first placed reliance upon AIR 1980 SC 707 , Krishna Singh v. Mathura Ahir and others and has contended that the properties of a ‘Sadhu’ on his death are inherited by the institution he belongs and, therefore, Krishna Kumar gets no right over it. He also submitted that Krishna Kumar has not appealed against the judgment and order of the Courts below in his personal capacity and the present appeal is only by the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Rani Devi. A perusal of the memo of appeal do indicates that it has been filed by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Krishna Kumar as heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Rani Devi as both of them have described themselves in the appeal as defendants No. 1/1 and 1/2, the appellant No. 1 being Smt. Rani Devi since deceased. Smt. Rani Devi has no lawful claim in the amount deposited in the FDR as she has not been found to be a legally wedded wife of late Bisheshwar Das. The said Krishna Kumar who is entitle to it has not filed any appeal in his independent capacity. Therefore, impliedly he has given up his right and he cannot be allowed to claim the amount therein as the heir of Smt. Rani Devi. 24. The point otherwise also looses significance in view of the statement of Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the plaintiff that in case Krishna Kumar is still interested and wants to claim the said amount of Rs. 20000/- the plaintiff is ready and willing to offer the same to him. 24. The point otherwise also looses significance in view of the statement of Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the plaintiff that in case Krishna Kumar is still interested and wants to claim the said amount of Rs. 20000/- the plaintiff is ready and willing to offer the same to him. Accordingly, in view of the above statement he is free to approach the plaintiff for the redressal of his grievance for the amount of fixed deposit. Therefore, the issue of ownership of the FDR in no way affects the decision taken by the two Courts below so as to warrant any interference by this Court in a second appeal. 25. The claim of the defendants on the basis of the succession certificate earlier issued in their favour also stands defeated as the said certificate has been cancelled which order has not been appealed against and therefore has become final and conclusive. 26. The two points so raised earlier and discussed above are of no substance so as to enable the Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 100, C.P.C. 27. No other point has been raised and pressed before me. 28. The appeal is accordingly, held to be meritless and is dismissed with no orders as to costs. ————