JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. By this appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter called, 'the Code of Civil Procedure'), the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff in the Title Suit No. 17 of 2000 and Respondent No. 1 in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2002, has challenged the judgment and decree, dated 12-9-2003 and 16-9-2003, respectively passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur in Title Appeal No. 01 of 2002. 2. I have heard Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. Also heard Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned State counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing for the Respondent No. 4. None appears for the Respondent No. 5. 3. The Plaintiff Smt. Anjali Debnath is the widow of late Suresh Chandra Debnath. Her husband who was a State Government employee died on 16-3-88 leaving behind the Plaintiff and one daughter, namely, Ms Mousumi Debnath as his legal heirs. After the death of Sri Suresh Chandra Debnath, a proposal for family pension was submitted and the same was granted in favour of the Plaintiff with effect from 14-6-2008 and accordingly, the Plaintiff continued to draw her family pension, granted by the office of the Accountant General i.e the Defendant-Respondent No. 4 upto 27-10-1992, through the Udaipur Treasury. After the death of her said husband, the Respondent No. 5 made a proposal to marry the Plaintiff and as agreed to by the Plaintiff, their marriage was solemnized, before the Goddess Kali at Matabari, Tripura Sundari Temple, by exchange of garlands. After this marriage, the said couple lived as husband and wife for about one and a half years, the Plaintiff informed the Treasury Officer, South Tripura, Udaipur i.e the Respondent No. 3 about the said marriage and the said authority stopped the family pension with effect from 28-10-92. The Respondent No. 5 i.e the second husband of the Plaintiff, after staying with the Plaintiff for about one and a half years, left her in the month of August, 1994 and since then, he did not join the Plaintiff. The Respondent No. 5 i.e the second husband of the Plaintiff, after staying with the Plaintiff for about one and a half years, left her in the month of August, 1994 and since then, he did not join the Plaintiff. On 2-2-98, upon enquiry, the Plaintiff came to know, from the Defendant No. 5, that he had already married another lady as per Hindu rituals and that out of the said wedlock children were born to them. He also refused to treat the Plaintiff as his wife, on the ground that their marriage was not performed as per Hindu rites and customs and, thus, the Plaintiff came to know that her marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was not a marriage in the eye of law and for that the Respondent No. 5 was not her legally married husband. In view of the above, according to the Plaintiff, as she, after the death of her husband who was a Government employee, did not enter into any legal marriage and the Respondent No. 5 also declined to accept her as his wife, was entitled to get family pension as the widow of late Suresh Chandra Debnath aforesaid, but the authority declined to release the family pension with effect from 28-10-92, on the ground that she had re-married the Respondent No. 5. 4. As the Plaintiff's alleged marriage with Respondent No. 5 (though not a valid marriage in the eye of law) clouded her right to get the family pension, she, as the Plaintiff instituted the title suit aforesaid seeking a declaration that No. legal marriage was solemnized between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 5 as per Hindu rites and customs and that No. matrimonial relationship existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 5. She also prayed for a declaration that the stoppage of the family pension, on the ground of re-marriage, was illegal, void and that she was lawfully entitled to get the family pension due to death of her deceased husband. 5. The Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 i.e the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively contested the Plaintiff's claim by filing a written statement. The contesting Defendants, in their written statement, while denying the Plaintiff's claim, averred that the suit was not maintainable, that there was No. cause of action and that the claim was barred by estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and law of Limitation. 1, 2 and 3 respectively contested the Plaintiff's claim by filing a written statement. The contesting Defendants, in their written statement, while denying the Plaintiff's claim, averred that the suit was not maintainable, that there was No. cause of action and that the claim was barred by estoppels, waiver and acquiescence and law of Limitation. Admitting the non-payment of pension with effect from 28-10-92, the contesting Defendants, in their written statement, stated that the Plaintiff herself by filing a petition stated that she had married the Defendant No. 5 and requested to pay her family pension upto 28-10-92. According to the Defendants, the fact of re-marriage was enquired into through the Officer-in-Charge, Kakrabon police outpost and from the said enquiry revealed that the Plaintiff had re-married the Defendant No. 5 on 28-10-92 and that they were living as husband and wife. According to the Defendants, on the basis of the said enquiry as well as the petition, submitted by the Plaintiff, her family pension was discontinued with effect from 28-10-92, on the ground that she had re-married. The said Defendants denied the Plaintiff's contention that she was not living with Defendant No. 5 as husband and wife. The Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 i.e Accountant General, Tripura and Sri Kanti Lal Banik (alleged second husband of the Plaintiff) i.e the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 failed to contest the Plaintiff's claim. 6. Upon the pleadings of both the parties, the learned trial Judge framed the following issues: (i) Whether the present suit is maintainable in its present form and nature ? (ii) Whether the Plaintiff has any cause of action to file the present suit ? (iii) Whether there was any relationship of husband and wife between the Plaintiff and Defendant No. 5 ? (iv) Whether the family pension granted to the Plaintiff was stopped illegally or not ? (v) Whether Plaintiff is entitled to get family pension and arrear thereto, w.e.f.28-10-92 ? (vi) Any other relief (s) parties are entitled to. 7. The Plaintiff, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW 1 and proved certain documents. The contesting Defendants also examined one witness as DW 1 and exhibited certain documents. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge (Civil Judge, Jr. (vi) Any other relief (s) parties are entitled to. 7. The Plaintiff, in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW 1 and proved certain documents. The contesting Defendants also examined one witness as DW 1 and exhibited certain documents. Considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge (Civil Judge, Jr. Division) held that No. matrimonial relation, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 5, existed and as such she was entitled to get the family pension as the widow of her deceased husband, namely, late Suresh Chandra Debnath. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's suit was decreed on contest. 8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the State Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as Appellants, preferred an appeal, under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the judgment and decree, dated 29-9-2001, on the grounds that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the Plaintiff's plea, that after the death of her husband, namely, Suresh Chandra Debnath, her marriage with the Defendant No. 5 was solemnized, that they lived as husband and wife and that the Plaintiff submitted a petition to the Appellant No. 3, i.e the Treasury Officer, South Tripura, Udaipur mentioning, therein, about her re-marriage with the Defendant No. 5, on 28-10-92, with a request to pay her the family pension upto 28-10-92. The Appellants contended that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the legal provision regarding entitlement of family pension and also that, in view of the second marriage performed by the Plaintiff, she lost her right to get the family pension as the widow of her former deceased husband. The learned Addl. District Judge, by the impugned judgment and order, reversed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge, observing that legal and general presumption could be drawn in favour of the performance of marriage between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 5 and that there was No. scope of misrepresentation and mistake of law on the part of the Plaintiff. 9. 9. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, rendered by the first appellate court, the Plaintiff, as Appellant, has come up with this appeal on the ground, amongst others, that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate that the alleged second marriage of the Plaintiff was not a legal marriage in the eye of law and that the letter, dated 30-11-92, issued by the Plaintiff, lost its force at the moment when it was discovered by the Plaintiff that she was not the spouse of Defendant No. 5. 10. At the time of admission of this second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed: (i) Whether the finding of facts that the marriage between the Appellant and the 5th Respondent had taken place during the life time of the 1st wife of the Respondent, the learned appellate court was correct to presume that the marriage between the Appellant and the 5th Respondent is a valid one which is a presumption against the law? (ii) Whether Ext.3, whereby the Appellant had informed the 4th Respondent about her marriage with the 5th Respondent without knowing at that time that their marriage was solemnized during the life time of 1st wife of the Respondent, can be said to act as an estoppels against the Appellant herein to seek declaration that the marriage was not a valid one for the said reason? Subsequently, after hearing both the parties, the substantial questions aforesaid have been modified/recast and as follows: (i) Whether the first appellate Court committed error by holding that the Appellant was legally married wife of the Respondent No. 5 and that the marriage between the said parties was a valid marriage in the eye of law ? (ii) Whether the first appellate Court committed error by holding that the exhibit No. C i.e. the letter, issued by the Appellant to the Respondent No. 3 operated as an estoppel against the Appellant? 11. Mr. S. Talapatra, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the Appellant has, submitted that the Plaintiff, who did not know about the legal formalities, required to be performed in solemnizing the marriage of a Hindu, bona fide believed that the exchange of garland with the Defendant No. 5, in the temple, completed her marriage with the said Defendant and accordingly, on the basis of exchange of garland she accepted the Defendant No. 5 as her husband. But subsequently, it is submitted by Mr. Talapatra, she came to know from Respondent No. 5, who refused to accept her as his wife, that her said marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was not a marriage in the eye of law and that the Respondent No. 5 was not her husband. The learned Counsel has submitted that the Plaintiff, initially, honestly, believing the Respondent No. 5 as her husband, had informed the authority about the said marriage and did not claim family pension from the date of her said marriage, but subsequently, she could discover that her said belief regarding her marriage was a mistake of fact, in as much as she was misled by the Respondent No. 5. Therefore, it is submitted, on behalf of the Appellant, that as the Plaintiff's marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was not lawfully solemnized and the Respondent No. 5 refused to accept her as his wife, the Plaintiff was entitled to get a decree declaring that her said marriage was not a valid marriage and that she was entitled to get the family pension as the widow of her deceased husband. Referring to the provision of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the learned Counsel has submitted that as neither the ceremony of Saptabadi nor any customary rites were performed, the marriage of the Plaintiff and the Respondent No. 5, who were Hindus, was a nullity in the eye of law and that the intimation given by the Plaintiff regarding her second marriage, on the basis of mistake of fact cannot operate as estoppels and waiver thereby depriving the Plaintiff from getting her lawful pension, after discovery of the said mistake i.e non-existence of valid marital status. Supporting the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned trial Judge, the learned Senior counsel has submitted that the learned Addl. District Judge committed error by drawing presumption on the basis of the a report submitted by the Panchayat Chairman. The learned Senior counsel submitted that there cannot be any presumption contrary to statutory requirement. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel has relied on the following decisions: (1) Groupe Chikique Tunisien SA v. Sothern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation. Ltd. AIR 2006 SC 2422 , Para-9 (2) Air India v. Ms Kamal Chopra and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1829 Para-17 (3) U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd v. Indure Pvt Ltd and Ors. In support of his contention, learned Senior counsel has relied on the following decisions: (1) Groupe Chikique Tunisien SA v. Sothern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation. Ltd. AIR 2006 SC 2422 , Para-9 (2) Air India v. Ms Kamal Chopra and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 1829 Para-17 (3) U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd v. Indure Pvt Ltd and Ors. (1996) 2 SCC 667 , Para-17 (4) Shanker Lal v. Narendra Bahadur Tendon AIR 1967 All 405 12. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant SG, appearing for the Respondent No. 4 has submitted that the Plaintiff herself submitted an application (Ext.C) informing that she was married to the Respondent No. 5 and that as per police report (Ext.F) also the Plaintiff-Appellant was found living as the wife of the Respondent No. 5. Therefore, it is submitted that the Appellant is not entitled to claim family pension as the widow of her former husband. It is further submitted that in view of her communication (Ext.C) regarding her marriage with the Respondent No. 5, her claim is barred by principle of estoppel. 13. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned State counsel, controverting the arguments, advanced by the learned Senior counsel, appearing for the Appellant, and adopting the argument, advanced by the learned Assistant Solicitor General has submitted that the Plaintiff, herself, by filing an application (Ext.C) admitted that her marriage with Respondent No. 5 was performed and that she was living with him as husband and wife. It is also submitted that, from the report submitted by Officer-in-Charge, Kakrabon outpost, it stood established that the Plaintiff was living with the Respondent No. 5 as husband and wife. Therefore, it is submitted, on behalf of the State Respondents, that the learned Addl. District Judge committed No. error by drawing the presumption about the existence of relationship of husband and wife between the Plaintiff and the Defendant No. 5 and also holding that the Plaintiff was not entitled to get family pension. 14. Having heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and considering the materials on record, I find that the short question involved in this appeal is as to whether, in the eye of law, the Plaintiff was the wife of Defendant No. 5, if not, whether, despite her application dated 30-3-92 (Ext.C), she would be entitled to get family pension as the widow of her deceased husband. 15. 15. In the present case at hand, admittedly, both the Plaintiff and the Respondent No. 5 are Hindus. Therefore, their marriage not being performed by registration, is governed by the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955. Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which reads as follows, provides the procedure as to how the marriage of Hindus is to be solemnized: S.7. Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage- (1) A Hindu marriage may be solemnized in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies of either party thereto. (2) Where such rites and ceremonies include the saptapadi (that is the taking of seven steps by the bridegroom and the bride jointly before the sacred fire), the marriage becomes complete and binding when the seventh steps is taken. 16. Therefore, a marriage of Hindus if not solemnized in accordance with the customary rites or by performance of ceremonies including Saptabadi is not a valid marriage in the eye of law. 17. In the case of Surjeet Kaur v. Garjar Singh, reported in AIR 1994 SC 135 , the Supreme Court observed that mere living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, confer the status of wife and husband. As referred in the said case, in the case of B.S. Lakhandas case ( AIR 1965 SC 1954 ), it was laid down that mere fact that the man and woman living as husband and wife does not, at any rate, normally give them the status of husband and wife even though they may hold themselves out before the society as husband and wife and society treats them as such. 18. In the case at hand, as pleaded by the Plaintiff, her marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was performed in the temple by exchange of garland. There is nothing on record to find that except the exchange of garland, any other customary rites and ceremonies including Saptabadi were performed. Also there is No. evidence, on record, to find that the exchange of garland, was the customary rites constituting marriage between either party. Admittedly, No. Saptabadi has also not been performed. In view of the above, as there is No. evidence to show that the exchange of garland was a customary rite constituting a legal marriage between the said parties, saptapadi was the essential requirement of a valid marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 5. Admittedly, No. Saptabadi has also not been performed. In view of the above, as there is No. evidence to show that the exchange of garland was a customary rite constituting a legal marriage between the said parties, saptapadi was the essential requirement of a valid marriage between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 5. Therefore, in the absence of saptapadi, there is No. difficulty in concluding that the ceremonies prescribed by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 were not performed. The question regarding entitlement of the Appellant to get family pension, as the widow of her deceased husband being a legal question, to show that she was not entitled to get pension it is to be established that a lawful marriage was solemnized or performed between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 5. 19. According to the Plaintiff, she, on being persuaded by the Respondent No. 5, bona fide believed that the exchange of garland constituted marriage and accordingly, she accepted the Respondent No. 5 as her husband with whom she continued to live for about one and a half years. Subsequently, she could discover, on being disclosed by her said husband that their marriage was not performed as per Hindu law and, therefore, she was not the wife of the Respondent No. 5. According to the Plaintiff, her said husband refused to accept her as his legally married wife. There is No. dispute that, immediately, after the alleged marriage, between the Appellant and the Respondent No. 5, the Appellant, had informed the authority, concerned, that she had entered into re-marriage and accordingly her pension was stopped with effect from 28-10-92. This conduct on the part of the Plaintiff indicates her honesty and sincerity. However, subsequently, on being refused by the Respondent No. 5 to accept her as his wife, on the ground that their marriage was not performed as per Hindu law, the Plaintiff could realize that due to misrepresentation and mistake of fact she had accepted the Respondent No. 5 as her husband. Therefore, realizing her mistake, she approached the authority by filing a representation for releasing her family pension, which was stopped on the basis of her application (Ext.C). But the authority refused to accept her plea on the ground that she, having represented herself as the married wife of the Respondent No. 5, was estopped from re-opening the matter. 20. Therefore, realizing her mistake, she approached the authority by filing a representation for releasing her family pension, which was stopped on the basis of her application (Ext.C). But the authority refused to accept her plea on the ground that she, having represented herself as the married wife of the Respondent No. 5, was estopped from re-opening the matter. 20. The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, referring to the Exbt.C made by the Appellant, has submitted that, as the Appellant herself informed the authority that she had entered into a marriage with the Respondent No. 5, her subsequent claim for family pension was hit by principles of estoppel. It is also contended, on behalf of the Respondents, that the Appellant having accepted the Respondent No. 5 as her husband, cannot be allowed to say that her alleged marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was not a marriage in the eye of law. 21. The learned District Judge, while reversing the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Judge, observed that the Plaintiff being a married wife (i.e a widow) was quite aware of the rites and the ceremonies to be performed in a marriage and as such her plea, that she was misrepresented by the Respondent No. 5 and that she had accepted the exchange of garland to be the valid form of marriage due to misrepresentation, cannot be accepted. 22. The learned Senior counsel, appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that as there cannot be estoppel against the statute, the performance of the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Respondent No. 5 by exchange of garland, which was contrary to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, cannot stand as estoppel. The learned Senior counsel has also submitted that if a party takes a stand due to mistake of fact, misrepresentation or wrong understanding of law, he or she is not barred from changing such stand subsequently after discovery of the mistake. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Senior counsel that as the Plaintiff could subsequently discover that her marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was not performed as per Hindu Law and she was not the legally married wife of the Respondent No. 5, she rightly approached the authority concerned for getting her family pension released which she was entitled to. The learned Senior counsel has submitted that the learned District Judge committed error by holding that the principle of estoppel would be applicable against the Plaintiff and that she was not entitled to get the decree as sought for. 23. Hindu marriage has both religious as well as secular aspects. It is a sacrament because there is emphasis on the performance of the customary rites and ceremonies including Saptabadi wherever it is treated as an essential ceremony for the completion of the marriage. Section 7 of the statute recognizes the marriage under the Hindu law as a sacrament and to constitute a valid marriage under the Hindu law the essential requirement is solemnization of marriage in accordance with the customary rites and ceremonies. We have already discussed that exchange of garland is not the customary rites governing the parties in this case, therefore, ceremonies including Saptabadi is the ceremony to be performed to constitute the marriage between them. There is No. dispute that the Plaintiff after entering into the alleged marriage of the Respondent No. 5, had informed the authority by issuing a letter i.e Exbt.C that she got married with the Respondent No. 5. She has clearly stated, in her evidence given as PW 1, that she subsequently came to know from Respondent No. 5 that her marriage with him was not solemnized as per the Hindu customary rites and ceremonies and as such she was not the married wife of the Respondent No. 5. She was duly cross-examined on behalf of the Defendants-Respondents and No. contradiction could be elicited to demolish her evidence regarding the said contention. Nothing has been elicited, from the cross-examination that the exchange of garland was the customary rite constituting her marriage with Respondent No. 5. Therefore, it is clear that the marriage of the Plaintiff with the Respondent No. 5 was not performed as per the statutory provisions. Hence, the said marriage was not a marriage in the eye of law, in as much as she had to accept the same as marriage due to mistake of fact and law and on misrepresentation made by the Respondent No. 5. 24. Hence, the said marriage was not a marriage in the eye of law, in as much as she had to accept the same as marriage due to mistake of fact and law and on misrepresentation made by the Respondent No. 5. 24. In the case of U.P. Rajakiya Nirman Nigam Ltd (supra), the Supreme Court observed that where there is a mistake as to the terms of the documents, the signatory to the original contract is not estopped by his signature from denying that he intended to make an offer in the terms set out in the document. 25. In the case of M/S Groupe Chikique Tunisien SA v. M/S Sothern Petrochemicals Industries Corporation. Ltd., the Supreme Court observed that if, on account of mistake or wrong understanding of law, a party takes a particular stand he is not barred from changing his stand. 26. In the case of Shanker Lal v. Narendra Bahadur Tendon (supra), the Supreme Court observed that any act, done under misapprehension of legal right, does not create estoppel, nor does the knowledge or the parties about their correct position. (See AIR 1931 PC 79). 27. In the case of Air India v. Ms Kamal Chopra (supra), the Supreme Court observed "it is well settled that there can be No. estoppel against the statute much less against the statutory provisions". 28. In view of the above principles laid down by the Supreme Court, it is settled position of law that any act done under mistake or wrong understanding of law or due to misrepresentation does not debar a party from changing its stand, after discovery of the mistake, if any. It is also settled principle that there cannot be any estoppel against statutory provision. Therefore, until and unless an act is done as per the prescribed statutory provision, the party is not bound by the act, if the same done due to mistake of fact, or misunderstanding of law or due to misrepresentation. As such, the party, after discovery of the mistake can change its stand. 29. Therefore, until and unless an act is done as per the prescribed statutory provision, the party is not bound by the act, if the same done due to mistake of fact, or misunderstanding of law or due to misrepresentation. As such, the party, after discovery of the mistake can change its stand. 29. In the present case, it is the pleaded case of the Plaintiff that she had accepted the "exchange of garland" as the valid form of marriage at the instance of the Respondent No. 5 and accepted him as her husband, but subsequently, she could discover, on being disclosed by the said husband i.e the Respondent No. 5 that her marriage with him was not solemnized as per the Hindu law and as such she was not his wife. 30. As discussed above, there can be No. dispute that her marriage with the Respondent No. 5 was not performed as per the Hindu rites and customs of either of the parties. Therefore, the Plaintiff-Appellant, having realized/discovered that she was misrepresented and that she accepted the Respondent No. 5 as her husband under mistake of law, she is not debarred from changing her stand regarding her marriage with the Respondent No. 5 and approaching the authority to release her family pension. As her marriage was not performed as per statutory provision, the Exbt. No. C, which was issued under mistake of fact and law, cannot operate as estoppel against her. 31. The learned District Judge, in the absence of any evidence regarding solemnization of the marriage of the Plaintiff with the Respondent No. 5 as per the customary rites, relying on the Ext. No. C i.e the letter issued by the Appellant and the endorsement, made, thereon, by the Chairman of the Panchayat and the Ext. No. F i.e the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, observed that those two documents were admitted by the Plaintiff and as such those documents remained unchallenged. It has already been noticed that the Ext.C was issued by the Plaintiff due to mistake of facts and law regarding her marriage. Therefore, after discovery of her mistake and as the Ext.C cannot operate as an estoppel against the statute, the Plaintiff had No. difficulty, under the law to change her stand. It has already been noticed that the Ext.C was issued by the Plaintiff due to mistake of facts and law regarding her marriage. Therefore, after discovery of her mistake and as the Ext.C cannot operate as an estoppel against the statute, the Plaintiff had No. difficulty, under the law to change her stand. Therefore, the Ext.C, which was issued under mistake, cannot be a substantive evidence to show that the Plaintiff's marriage was lawfully performed with the Respondent No. 5. That apart, the endorsement of the Chairman of the Panchayat does not indicate that the marriage was performed as per law and in his presence. He did not state in what form the marriage was performed. Hence, the said endorsement does not imply that the Plaintiff was the lawfully married wife of the Respondent No. 5. Further, by the Ext.C the Plaintiff, requested the Respondent No. 4 to give her pension upto 28-10-92. This indicates that she had requested to withhold her pension w.e.f. 28-10-92. But the Chairman of the Panchayat, while mentioning that the Plaintiff remarried on 28-10-92 at his gram Panchayat made a request to sanction the pension in favour of the Plaintiff. The said recommendation was contradictory to the stand taken by the Appellant. The said Chairman, in fact, does not appear to be aware of the contention, made in Ext.C. The Ext.F i.e the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police also does not indicate that the marriage was lawfully performed. What the Ext.F reveals is that the Plaintiff and the Respondent No. 5 married on 20-10-92 and that on the date of the report i.e on 21-12-92, they were found living as husband and wife. The Plaintiff, also pleaded that she lived with the Respondent No. 5 as husband and wife for about one and a half year from the date of the alleged marriage. She did not deny that she did not live with the Respondent No. 5. Living as husband and wife does not imply that the such living was preceded by a lawful marriage. She did not deny that she did not live with the Respondent No. 5. Living as husband and wife does not imply that the such living was preceded by a lawful marriage. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding performance of lawful marriage, as per the statutory provision, as prescribed by Section 7 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the living of the Plaintiff-Appellant with the Respondent No. 5 as husband and wife, that too, for such a short period, cannot be sufficient to hold that the Plaintiff-Appellant was the married wife of the Respondent No. 5. 32. The learned District Judge further observed that as the Plaintiff was a married woman, she was supposed to know about the forms required to constitute a marriage between the Hindus and as such her plea that she was not aware of the forms of marriage was not believable. In view of the above, the learned District Judge took presumption of legal marriage. There cannot be any presumption contrary to the statutory provision/prescription. As the marriage was required to be performed following the statutory provisions, in the absence of any evidence regarding performance of the marriage as per statutory prescriptions, the learned District judge committed error, in the eye of law, by drawing such presumption and holding that the Plaintiff was the married wife of the Respondent No. 5. The said finding of the learned District Judge is not based on evidence. Therefore, the same cannot stand the test of law. 33. In view of the above discussion, it has been found that the marriage between the Plaintiff and the Respondent No. 5 was not lawfully performed and as such the same was not a legal marriage in the eye of law. Therefore, after discovery of the mistake, as the Plaintiff could realize that she was not the married wife of the Respondent No. 5 and No. legal marriage existed between them, she was entitled to get the decree as prayed for. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. Therefore, the interference made by the learned District Judge was unwarranted. 34. In the light of the above discussion, I find sufficient merit in this appeal, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge rightly decreed the suit in favour of the Appellant/Plaintiff. Therefore, the interference made by the learned District Judge was unwarranted. 34. In the light of the above discussion, I find sufficient merit in this appeal, requiring interference with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is set aside. Consequently, the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Judge, shall stand affirmed and upheld. 35. The appeal is allowed on contest with cost. Return the lower court records. Appeal allowed