JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. This regular second appeal has been filed by appellant against judgment and decree dated 30.06.2006, passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, vide which judgment and decree dated 30.11.2005 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lahaul & Spiti at Kullu dismissing the suit of appellant-plaintiff was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that father of appellant (plaintiff) had filed a suit for declaration and permanent prohibitory injunction against the respondents-defendants. It was alleged by plaintiff that suit land, earlier owned and possessed by Karmi son of Devi Ram son of Tula son of Agru has been inherited by plaintiff on death of Shri Karmi on 8.09.2002 and the same was in possession of the plaintiff as owner thereof. The plaintiff had sought further declaration to the effect that mutation No. 1115, qua suit land decided on 21.03.2003 by Assistant Commissioner-II, Grade Banjar attested in favour of defendants was illegal, void and inoperative and plaintiff was not bound by the same. As consequential relief, permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants from interfering in ownership and possession of plaintiff was also sought for. 3. It was alleged that Shri Karmi was un-married and issueless and had died intestate and plaintiff being only agnate and sole heir of the deceased Karmi had inherited suit land on death of Karmi on 8.09.2002. It was alleged by plaintiff that by taking advantage of his illiteracy, leprosy and old age defendants, in connivance with revenue officials to grab the land of plaintiff i.e. suit land, had managed attestation of mutation No. 1115 in their favour despite the fact that defendants were not daughters of deceased Karmi and as such were not heir of Karmi. It was alleged that one Agru son of Dhanu was common ancestor of deceased Karmi and plaintiff. Shri Agru had four sons namely Tula, Sablu, Ram Dass and Dharmu. Tula was grandfather of deceased Karmi and Sablu was grand-father of plaintiff Paras Ram and Ram Dass was grand father of Shri Lachhi Ram. Dharmu had only one son namely Anant Ram who had died issueless. Lachhi Ram son of Hirdu son of Ram Dass has predeceased. Therefore, it was alleged that plaintiff was agnate of nearest degree to the deceased Karmi and was owner in possession of suit land and defendants had no concern with suit land. 4. Dharmu had only one son namely Anant Ram who had died issueless. Lachhi Ram son of Hirdu son of Ram Dass has predeceased. Therefore, it was alleged that plaintiff was agnate of nearest degree to the deceased Karmi and was owner in possession of suit land and defendants had no concern with suit land. 4. The defendants had filed written statement with preliminary objections that plaintiff was not natural heir of the last holder of the suit land, i.e. of Karmi and was neither owner nor in possession of the suit land. It was stated in preliminary objection No. 3 that suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as sisters of Karmi namely Smt. Rami and Smt. Shauni, both daughters of Devi Ram son of Tula had not been impleaded as party and they were agnates of the same degree as is being claimed by plaintiff and also other agnates of the same degree as being claimed by the plaintiff were also necessary parties. 5. In para wise reply on merits death of Karmi on 8.09.2002 in Civil hospital Banjar was admitted but it was denied that Karmi died issueless and in-testate. It was stated in written statement that parties were agriculturists of Kullu and in matters of marriage, divorce etc. they were governed by local tribal custom. It was claimed that marriage between Ishru and Karmi was solemnized by performing Ganesh Pooja and serving of meals to the marriage party as per custom governing the parties and Smt. Ishru was legally wedded wife of Karmi and two daughters Dev Dassi and Punni Devi (defendants) were born out of this wedlock. On death of Karmi his estate was inherited by defendants being his daughters and they were owner in possession of suit land as joint owners. In existence of daughters of deceased Karmi, agnates had no right of succeeding to the estate of Karmi. It is alleged that plaintiff was a healthy, very clever and worldly-wise person and he had filed the suit on false allegations by concealing true facts in connivance with his son Man Dass who earlier had setup a forged and fictitious will of Karmi deceased in order to grab suit land during proceedings pending before Assistant Commissioner II Grade, Banjar in mutation No. 1115 and the said will was rightly rejected by revenue authority. 6. 6. Plaintiff had not chosen to file replication to the written statement. 7. The suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed after conclusion of trial by learned trial Court. All issues were decided against plaintiff including that suit was not maintainable for joinder of necessary parties namely Shauni and Rami. 8. Against judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court, an appeal was preferred by present appellant Man Dass son of plaintiff, which was dismissed by learned First Appellate Court after hearing the parties by holding that defendants were daughters of deceased Karmi and being Class-I heirs of deceased Karmi were entitled to inherit his estate and also mutation No. 1115 had rightly been attested in their favour. It was also held that Shauni and Rami, sisters of deceased Karmi were necessary party and in their absence suit was not maintainable. 9. Present appeal against judgment passed by First Appellate Court was admitted on following substantial question of law:- 1. Whether Courts below have misconstrued, misinterpreted Ex. PW-3/A, Ex. PW-2/A in returning the finding that Smt. Ishru mother of defendants is wife of Karmi and not of Lachhi. 2. Once Smt. Ishru is proved to be wife of Lachhi and without proof of divorce between Lachhi and Smt. Ishru, whether under Section 112 read with Section 114 of the Evidence Act, the defendants will be presumed to be the daughters of Smt. Ishru from Lachhi. 3. Whether birth certificate Ex. D2 and Ex. D3 have no evidentia value in the absence of corroborative evidence that Karmi is the father of female children mentioned in Ex. D2 and Ex. D3. 4. Whether Ex. D4 has been misconstrued and misinterpreted in holding that Smt. Rami and Smt. Shauni are the sisters of Karmi and in any case suit could not be dismissed without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead Smt. Rami and Smt. Shauni. 10. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through record of the case and all substantial questions are interrelated with each other and therefore, are being considered collectively. 11. Document Ex. PW-3/A is a copy of extract of register revaccination dated 6.02.1943. As per entries of this document 16 year old Ishru was wife of 33 years old Lachhi on 6.02.1943. Ex. PW-2/A is a copy of extract of register of birth. 11. Document Ex. PW-3/A is a copy of extract of register revaccination dated 6.02.1943. As per entries of this document 16 year old Ishru was wife of 33 years old Lachhi on 6.02.1943. Ex. PW-2/A is a copy of extract of register of birth. As per this document 30 years old Ishru had given birth to male child of Lachhi on 13.11.1952. It is also relevant to mention here that as per extract Ex. PW-2/B pertaining to register of birth, Smt. Kishi had given birth to a female child of Lachhi on 20.11.1948. As per defendants Ishru was married to Karmi by performing Ganesh Pooja and serving meal to the villagers and defendant No. 2 Puni Devi and defendant No. 1 Dev Dassi have born out of this wedlock on 26.07.1957 and 1.03.1962, respectively. DW-2 Lagan Chand has deposed that marriage of Ishru and Karmi was solemnized in February, 1955. Ex. PW-3/A only establishes that on 6.02.1943 Ishru was wife of Lachhi. The document Ex. PW-2/A can be considered, at the most, to construe that in 1952 Ishru was wife of Lachhi but it does not infer that Ishru was not married to Karmi later on i.e. in 1955 and defendants have not born out of this wedlock especially when it is pleading of plaintiff that Lachhi predeceased Karmi. From Ex. PW-2/A it appears that Smt. Kishi had given birth to female child of Lachhi on 20.11.1948. As per plaintiff Lachhi had expired prior to Karmi and Lal Dass was youngest child of Lachhi. As per Ex. PW-2/A the only son of Lachhi had born on 13.11.1952 whereas defendants were born in 1957 and 1962. There is no evidence on record that Lachhi was alive in 1957 and 1962 or Ishru as a wife of Lachhi had given birth to daughters after birth of Lal Dass. Lal Dass is the youngest child of Lachhi, therefore, defendants cannot be presumed to be daughters of Ishru from Lachhi. 12. It has come on record as claimed by defendants and also admitted by plaintiff that marriages in area of parties are performed according to custom by performing Ganesh Pooja. It is also admitted by plaintiff that Kishi was wife of Devi Ram but his father was not Devi Ram but Bhagat Ram and his mother was Kishi. 12. It has come on record as claimed by defendants and also admitted by plaintiff that marriages in area of parties are performed according to custom by performing Ganesh Pooja. It is also admitted by plaintiff that Kishi was wife of Devi Ram but his father was not Devi Ram but Bhagat Ram and his mother was Kishi. He has stated that earlier Kishi was wife of Bhagat Ram and after death of Bhagat Ram, Kishi was married to Devi Ram who was cousin of Bhagat Ram. 13. On the basis of evidence on record, it can be construed that there is custom of re-marriages of widow. It is also come on record that after death of brother his wife is re-married to his brother. Therefore, document Ex. PW-3/A cannot be considered a proof to hold that Ishru, mother of defendants was never wife of Karmi. Moreover, defendants are not claiming right through their mother but through their father deceased Karmi. Though, it has come on record in statement of DW-2 Lagan Chand that Ishru was married to deceased Karmi in the year 1955, however, in any case, Ishru was not married to deceased Karmi or her marriage with Karmi was not legal and valid even then also, it will not affect right of defendants, conferred upon them as daughters of Karmi. 14. The documents Ex. D2 and D3 are date of birth certificates issued under Section 12 and 17 of Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969. These documents have been prepared and issued by public officials/officers during the course of their duty performed as per provision of Registration of Birth and Death Act, 1969. 15. Ex. D1 is copy of entry of Parivar Register of family of Lal Dass son of Lachhi pertaining to year 1977. In this name of defendant No. 1 Dev Dassi has been included in his family but as daughter of Karmi aged 16 years which indicates year of birth of Dev Dassi as 1961. As per Ex. D3 date of birth of Dev Dasi is 1.03.1962. Therefore, plea of appellant that there is no evidence to corroborate Ex. D2 and D3 is not acceptable. 16. Ex. D4 is copy of order attesting mutation in favour of present appellant, who is son of plaintiff. As per Ex. D3 date of birth of Dev Dasi is 1.03.1962. Therefore, plea of appellant that there is no evidence to corroborate Ex. D2 and D3 is not acceptable. 16. Ex. D4 is copy of order attesting mutation in favour of present appellant, who is son of plaintiff. As per Shajara Nasab, mentioned in this document besides one son Karmi, Devi Ram was having three daughters namely Smt. Bresti, Shauni and Rami. Present appellant son of petitioner has derived benefit from this document. Learned lower Courts have rightly relied upon this document to construe that Smt. Shauni and Smt. Rami are alive sisters of Karmi. 17. It is pleaded in plaint that Karmi had died intestate whereas son of plaintiff who is pursuing present litigation after death of plaintiff had setup a claim on suit land on the basis of will which was rejected by Assistant Commissioner-II Grade during proceeding of attestation of mutation No. 1115 in favour of defendants vide order dated 8.11.2002. Copy of this order is Ex. D5. 18. Rebuttal presumption is attached to documents Ex. D1 to D5 and these documents can be relied upon unless are rebutted by leading cogent and convincing evidence. There is no convincing evidence on record to rebut the presumption of truth attached to documents Ex. D1 to Ex. D5. 19. Plaintiff and deceased Karmi belongs to a common ancestor Agru. Therefore, plaintiff was definitely having knowledge of sisters of Karmi. Therefore, it was the duty of plaintiff to array sisters of Karmi as defendants at the time of filing of the suit. Defendants have taken specific preliminary objections that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties by naming Smt. Rami and Smt. Shauni as sisters of deceased Karmi in the written statement. Even after specific objections of defendants, plaintiff had has not bothered to join them as party in civil suit. Plaintiff had not taken any step to join sisters of deceased Karmi as party even in appeal despite adverse findings returned by learned trial Court on this issue. 20. The question of presumption under Section 112 read with 114 of Evidence Act need not to be considered as it has already been proved on record that defendants are daughters of deceased Karmi and the defendants are claiming their right as daughters of Karmi. 21. 20. The question of presumption under Section 112 read with 114 of Evidence Act need not to be considered as it has already been proved on record that defendants are daughters of deceased Karmi and the defendants are claiming their right as daughters of Karmi. 21. Smt. Shauni and Rami are sisters of deceased Karmi and in case defendants are not daughters of deceased Karmi, then sisters of deceased Karmi also have right over the property i.e. suit land belonging to deceased Karmi. Judgment and decree, as prayed for by plaintiff cannot be passed in their absence. There fore, suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties has rightly been dismissed. 22. It has been argued on behalf of appellant that instead of dismissing suit and appeal on the issue of non-joinder of parties, lower courts should have granted opportunity to appellant-plaintiff to implead necessary parties in suit and even at this stage appellant deserves to be granted opportunity to do so. Learned counsel for appellant-plaintiff has relied upon 2008 (2) Shim. LC 203, titled as Vijay Kumar and others Versus Rattan Chand and others and Latest HLJ 2010 (HP) 1261, titled as Rattan Chand and another versus Dharam Singh & others, in support of his plea that suit could not be dismissed without giving opportunity of plaintiff to implead necessary party. These judgments are not applicable in present case. 23. In Vijay Kumar’s case it was simply pleaded by defendants without disclosing details of necessary parties that suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it was considered by the Court that plea of defendants was vague and cannot be taken into account. 24. In Rattan Chand’s case, application to implead necessary parties was filed during pendency of suit along with an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and the application was rejected by trial Court on the ground that application was belated. In that case this Court has held that Court should not dismiss the suit for non-joinder of necessary parties without affording an opportunity to plaintiff to implead the party. 25. In present case, facts are entirely different and the plaintiff was put into notice by taking objections in preliminary submissions disclosing the name of necessary parties with relations to deceased Karmi. 25. In present case, facts are entirely different and the plaintiff was put into notice by taking objections in preliminary submissions disclosing the name of necessary parties with relations to deceased Karmi. Plaintiff had failed to take steps to implead necessary parties despite specific and clear preliminary objections of non-joinder of necessary parties by defendants in their written statement with details of necessary party. Even after finding of trial Court that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the plaintiff has not bothered to implead sisters of Karmi even in appeal before learned District Judge and had insisted that finding of trial Court are erroneous. In my opinion, in these facts ratio laid down in case reported in (2002) 1 Shimla LC 328, titled as Smt. Shyampati versus Munshi Ram and others decided on 2nd November, 2001 is applicable. 26. The Apex Court in AIR 1965 Supreme Court 271 (V 52 C 48) titled as Kanakarathanammal versus V.S. Loganatha Mudaliar and another, has held as under:- “(14) We do not think there is any justification for allowing the appellant to amend her plaint by adding her brothers at this late stage. We have already noticed that the plea of non-joinder had been expressly taken by respondents 1 and 2 in the trial Court and a clear and specific issue had been framed in respect of this contention. While the suit was being tried, the appellant might have applied to the trial, Court to add her brothers, but no such application was made. Even after the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on this ground, it does not appear that the appellant moved the High Court and prayed that she should be allowed to join her brothers even at the appellate stage, and so, the High Court had no occasion to consider the said point. The fact that the High Court came to the contrary conclusion, on the question of title does not matter, because if the appellant wanted to cure the infirmity in her plaint, she should have presented an application in that behalf at the hearing of the appeal itself. In fact, no such application was made even to this Court until the appeal was allowed to stand over after it was heard. Under the circumstances, we do not think it would be possible for us to entertain the said application. In fact, no such application was made even to this Court until the appeal was allowed to stand over after it was heard. Under the circumstances, we do not think it would be possible for us to entertain the said application. In the result, the application for amendment is rejected.” “(15) It is unfortunate that the appellant's claim has to be rejected on the ground that she failed to implead her two, brothers to her suit, though on the merits we have found that the property claimed by her in her present suit belonged to her mother and she is one of the three heirs on whom the said property devolves by succession under S. 12 of the Act. That, in fact, is the conclusion which the trial Court had reached and yet no action was taken by the appellant to bring the necessary parties on the record. It is true that under O. 1 R. 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure no suit shall be defeated by reason of the misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; but there can be no doubt that if the parties who are not joined are not only proper but also necessary parties to it, the infirmity in the suit is bound to be fatal. Even in such cases, the Court can under O. 1 r. 10, sub-rule 2 direct the necessary parties to be joined, but all this can and should be done at the stage of trial and that too without prejudice to the said parties' plea of limitation. Once it is held that the appellant's two brothers are co-heirs with her in respect of the properties left intestate by their mother,, the present suit filed by the appellant partakes of the character of a suit for partition, and in such a suit clearly the appellant alone would not be entitled to claim any relief against the respondents. The estate can be represented only when all the three heirs are before the Court. If the appellant persisted in proceeding with the suit on the basis that she was exclusively entitled to the suit property, she took the risk and it is now too late to allow her to rectify the mistake. In Naba Kumar Hazra & Anr. The estate can be represented only when all the three heirs are before the Court. If the appellant persisted in proceeding with the suit on the basis that she was exclusively entitled to the suit property, she took the risk and it is now too late to allow her to rectify the mistake. In Naba Kumar Hazra & Anr. v. Radheshyam Mahish, AIR 1931 PC 229 the Privy Council had to deal with a similar situation, In the suit from which that appeal arose, the plaintiff had failed to implead co-mortgagors and persisted in not joining them despite the pleas taken by the defendants that the co- mortgagors were necessary parties and in the end. it was urged on his behalf that the said co-mortgagors should be allowed to be impleaded before the Privy Council. In support of this plea, reliance was placed on the provisions of O. 1 r. 9 of the Code. In rejecting the said prayer, Sir George Lowndes, who spoke for the Board observed that "they are unable to hold that the said Rule has any application to an appeal before the Board in a case where the defect has been brought to the notice of the party concerned from the very outset of the proceedings and he has had ample opportunity of remedying it in India." 27. Learned counsel for respondents have relied upon judgment rendered in Hon’ble Supreme Court in case reported in (2010) 13 SCC 769 , titled as Jagtu versus Suraj Mal and others and (2012) 8 SCC 706 titled as Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society versus Ponniamman Educational Trust, and has argued that present suit deserves to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. 28. In Jagtu’s case trial Court had framed issues including maintainability of suit for non-joinder of necessary parties. After considering case in totality trial Court had returned findings that the suit was not maintainable for non-joinder of parties and the suit was dismissed. The said findings were reversed by First Appellate Court as well as High Court. However, the Apex Court has set aside the judgment and order passed by High Court and First Appellate Court and had restored judgment and decree of trial Court dismissing suit for non-joinder of necessary parties. 29. The said findings were reversed by First Appellate Court as well as High Court. However, the Apex Court has set aside the judgment and order passed by High Court and First Appellate Court and had restored judgment and decree of trial Court dismissing suit for non-joinder of necessary parties. 29. The Apex Court, in Church of Christ’s case has held that when the plaintiff itself persists in not impleading a necessary party in spite of objection, the consequences of non-joinder may follow subject to condition that the said objection should be taken in the trial court itself so that the plaintiff may have an opportunity to rectify the defect. 30. In the present case, objection was taken at the initial stage by specifically mentioning name of necessary party in preliminary objections of written statement and plaintiff has not taken any step to implead necessary party during the pendency of suit or even at the time of filing appeals. 31 No other point urged. Therefore, findings returned by lower courts are legal and correct being in consonance with ratio laid down by the Apex Court. There is no illegality, infirmity or perversity in impugned judgments so as to warrant interference of this Court. The impugned judgment has been passed after complete and correct appreciation of evidence on record. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. 32 As discussed, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant and hence the same is dismissed, as also, applications if any. No order to cost.