ORAL JUDGMENT:- This is a second appeal at the instance of the defendant. Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants. 2. Facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows: Plaintiffs are the sons of one Sk. Samshu. Sheikh Samshu died in the year 1950 leaving behind him the two plaintiffs and widow Chandbee. Chandbee had purchased 3.17 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 74/2 on 23-2-1971 under the registered sale-deed from one Hiralal Gawali. Since then Chandbee was in possession of the suit property. Chandbee died on 19-12-1981 at Masod. After the death of Chandbee plaintiffs applied for substitution of their names in place of Chandbee in revenue record. The defendant No.1 filed an objection to the said mutation. After enquiry Naib Tahsildar recorded the name of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs had preferred an appeal against the said order which came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs have now preferred an appeal before the Resident Deputy Collector and the same is pending. It is contended by the plaintiffs that on the basis of this order defendant No.1 has illegally taken possession of the suit property. It is contended by the plaintiffs that original defendant No. 2 Sharobi had no concern with the suit property and she had no right to sell the said property to defendant No.1. The sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is void. Plaintiffs therefore seek a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.1 is void and they also seek possession of the suit property. 3. It appears from the record that defendant No.2 was dead when the suit was filed and in her place one Sheikh Amad Sheikh Ramzan has been substituted. 4. Defendant No.1 has filed the Written Statement. The defendant No.1 does not dispute that Chandbee had purcahsed the suit property from Hiralal. It is the contention of the defendant No. 1 that after the death of her husband, Chandbee had married one Sheikh Ramzan of Pimpalkuta and her name was changed to Sharobee. It is further contended that Chandbee @ Sharobee had given right to plaintiff No.2 to sell the said property to defendant No. 1 and accordingly the sale-deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.1. She had given an authority to plaintiff No.2 to execute the sale-deed. It is further contended that Chandbee @ Sharobee had given right to plaintiff No.2 to sell the said property to defendant No. 1 and accordingly the sale-deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.1. She had given an authority to plaintiff No.2 to execute the sale-deed. Defendant No.1 denies that she has taken the possession illegally and forcibly. According to her even after Chandbee had purchased the property the same was in possession of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. l's husband Hiralal was cultivating the land on batai i.e. sharing of the crops. Since the sale-deed has been executed in favour of defendant No.1, the defendant No. 1 has become the owner of the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. Defendant No. 2 Sheikh Amad Sheikh Ramzan has not filed Written Statement and the suit proceeded ex-parte against him. 6. The learned Judge of the trial Court framed issues and found that plaintiffs· are the owner of the suit property after the death of Chandbee since it was purchased by Chandbee. She also found that defendant No.2 could not pass valid title in favour of defendant No.1 and possession of the defendant No.1 was illegal. It was also found that Chandbee had not executed any power of attorney in favour of plaintiff No.2 and the sale-deed is void. Holding so she decreed the suit. 7. Concurring with the finding of the trial Court learned Judge of the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by that order of dismissal this Second Appeal has been preferred. 8. The appeal came to be admitted by Mhase, J on grounds No.3 and 4 in the memo of appeal treating them as substantial questions of law. They are as follows: 1) Both the Courts below erred in law in holding that after the death of Sk. Samshu, Chandbi was not married with Sk. Ramjan and her name was not changed as Shorabi w/o Sk. Ramjan after the remarriage? 2) Both the Court ought to have held that Chandbi w/o Sk. Samshu and Sharobi w/o Sk. Ramjan is the same women who executed the Issarchithi of the field in dispute in favour of the appellant and executed the sale deed Ex. 49 through her son the respondent No. 1 Sk. Ahamad Sk. Samshu who signed after the remarriage of his mother as Sk. Amad Sk. Ramjan? 9. Samshu and Sharobi w/o Sk. Ramjan is the same women who executed the Issarchithi of the field in dispute in favour of the appellant and executed the sale deed Ex. 49 through her son the respondent No. 1 Sk. Ahamad Sk. Samshu who signed after the remarriage of his mother as Sk. Amad Sk. Ramjan? 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 10. Following are the few undisputed facts. That the suit field Sur. No. 74/2 of village Masod was purchased by Chandbee widow of Sheikh Ramzan by registered sale-deed dated 23-1-1971 from Hiralal Gawali the husband of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are sons of Chandbee and claimed ownership and possession being heirs of Chandbee. The sale-deed in favour of defendant No. 1 is executed by one Sheikh Amad s/o Sheikh Ramzan for Sharobee widow of Sheikh Ramzan. This Sk. Amad s/o Sheikh Ramzan is shown as defendant No.2. 11. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that Chandbee had remarried upon death of her husband Sheikh Samshu with one Sheikh Ramzan and was renamed as Sharobee. It is also their case that Sharobee had authorised Sk. Amad Sheikh Ramzan to sell the suit field to defendant No. 1 in case she died before execution of the sale-deed and accordingly Sheikh Amad sold the field to defendant No.1. Courts below have found that there is no proof of remarriage of Chandbee with Sheikh Ramzan. They have found that Chandbee had not executed any power of attorney in favour of Sheikh Amad Sheikh Ramzan. 12. In fact there is concurrent finding that Chandbee had not remarried with Sheikh Ramzan and that is a finding of fact. Yet since the appeal has been admitted on that aspect the evidence needs to be re-examined. It was contended that P. W.l's statement was recorded before the Revenue Authorities and there he stated that Chandbee had remarried with Sk. Ramzan. He was given a suggestion in the cross-examination that Chandbee had remarried with Sheikh Ramzan. He has denied that suggestion. His attention was therefore drawn to portions marked 'A' and 'B' in his statement recorded by the Naib Tahsildar in mutation proceedings. He denied to have made such a statement. This may at the' most show that the witness is not reliable or is not telling the truth. It cannot go to prove the marriage. He has denied that suggestion. His attention was therefore drawn to portions marked 'A' and 'B' in his statement recorded by the Naib Tahsildar in mutation proceedings. He denied to have made such a statement. This may at the' most show that the witness is not reliable or is not telling the truth. It cannot go to prove the marriage. The defendant has examined 4 witnesses. D. W. 1 Hiralal has simply stated that Sharobee had married with Sheikh Ramzan. He has further stated that he has a proof of marriage between the two. No proof however is placed on record. He admits that he does not know Sheikh Ramzan. If he does not know Sheikh Ramzan, his statement that Chandbee was married to Ramzan carries no weight. D. W. 2 Shankar has also stated that Chandbee had married with Sheikh Ramzan at Pimpalkuta and that plaintiffs also went along with her to Pimpalkuta. He also admits in cross-examination that he does not know when Chandbee married Sheikh Ramzan and he had never seen Sheikh Ramzan. This shows that this witness too has no personal knowledge about marriage of Chandbee with Sheikh Ramzan. D. W. 3 Gajanan goes a step ahead and claims in examination-in-chief to have attended the marriage. He however admits in crossexamination that he came to know of the marriage of Sheikh Ramzan with Sharobee. Thus his knowledge is also not personal and his evidence is only hearsay. The best evidence would have been that of a Quazi who maintains 'Nikahnama'. That has not been produced. There is absolutely no evidence of marriage between Chandbee and Sheikh Ramzan. There is therefore no evidence in fact that Chandbee was renamed as Sharobee. 13. We have seen from the evidence that the evidence does not go to show that Chandbee was married and was renamed as Sharobee. The result of this is that any document said to be executed by Sharobee could not be said to be executed by Chandbee at all, since there is no proof that Chandbee and Sharobee are one and the same person. The Courts below have rightly found that Chandbee is not proved to be Sharobee. 14. Ground No.4 as given in the memo of appeal which is taken as substantial question of law is reproduced here once again: Both the Court ought to have held that Chandbi w/o Sk. The Courts below have rightly found that Chandbee is not proved to be Sharobee. 14. Ground No.4 as given in the memo of appeal which is taken as substantial question of law is reproduced here once again: Both the Court ought to have held that Chandbi w/o Sk. Samshu and Sharobi w/o Sk. Ramjan is the same women who executed the Issarchithi of the field in dispute in favour of the appellant and executed the sale deed Ex. 49 through her son the respondent No. 1 Sk. Ahamad Sk. Samshu who signed after the remarriage of his mother as Sk. Amad Sk. Ramjan? The sale deed is signed· by Sheikh Ramzan. It appears that thumb impressions of Sheikh Amad Sheikh Samshu plaintiff No.2 were also taken for comparison. These thumb impressions could have been compared with the thumb impressions put on the sale-deed. The defendant was bound to tender evidence that thumb impression on the sale deed is of plaintiff No. 2 Sheikh Amad. Without such evidence of an expert it cannot be concluded that Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh Samshu personated as Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh Ramzan. There was no reason for Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh Samshu to change the name of his father even though his mother may have remarried. Surprisingly D. W. 1 Hiralal the husband of defendant No. 1 says in cross-examination that the sale deed is signed as Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh Ramzan for and on behalf of Sharobee. This sale deed is dated 13-1-1982 and Chandbee died on 19-12-1981. Obviously Chandbee (assuming her to be Sharobee) was not alive on the date of the sale deed. An authority if any given to Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh Samshu therefore had come to an end immediately upon the death of Chandbee. As a result he had no authority to execute the sale deed for and on behalf of Chandbee after her death. It did not and could not therefore convey title in favour of defendant No.1. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly and the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.