JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiffs'' suit for rendition of a declaratory decree, and, also for rendition of a decree for injunction, was partly decreed by the learned trial Court, whereby, mutation No.16 of 2.12.1982 was held to be wrong and illegal to the extent of it records plaintiffs No.3 and 4 as daughters of Shri Milkhi instead of Shri Meharu, and, plaintiffs along with defendant No.9 were declared to be joint owners in possession to the extent of 17/42 shares in Khata No.42 and 14/42 share in Khata No.62 along with defendants No.2 to 8, who were declared to be owners of 1/42 share in Khata No.42 and 1/42 share in Khata NO.62. Further sale deed of 6.8.1991 executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 was held to be wrong, illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.9 to the extent of it has transferred share in favour of defendants No.2 to 8 in excess of 1/42 share in each Khata. The aggrieved defendants, instituted an appeal therefrom before the learned first Appellate Court and the latter Court proceeded to allow the appeal and also dismissed the plaintiffs'' suit in its entirety. The plaintiffs'' being aggrieved therefrom, hence, preferred the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that Shri Lachman son of Shri Sidhu was common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 to 9, who died on 24.05.1980. He had two sons Milkhi and Mehru and four daughters (plaintiffs No.5 to 7 and defendant No.9). Shri Milkhi had died, during the life time of his father, Shi Lachman leaving behind his widow Smt. Taro (plaintiff No.2). After the death of Shri Milkhi, his widow Smt. Taro remarried with the brother of her deceased husband, namely one Meharu. The said Meharu was already married to defendant No.1. Out of the wedlock of Smt. Taro with one Meharu, two daughters Pawan and Vidya (plaintiffs No.3 and 4 respectively were born to Smt. Taro Devi from the loins of Shri Meharu. Thereafter, Mehru died on 1.3.1975. The said Meharu was already married to defendant No.1. Out of the wedlock of Smt. Taro with one Meharu, two daughters Pawan and Vidya (plaintiffs No.3 and 4 respectively were born to Smt. Taro Devi from the loins of Shri Meharu. Thereafter, Mehru died on 1.3.1975. He was succeeded by plaintiff No.1 to the extent of th share and by Smt. Taro, plaintiff NO.2 and Smt. Melo, defendant No.1 jointly to the extent of th share and Pawan and Vidya Devi, plaintiff No.3 and 4 succeeded his share to the extent of 2/4 share vide mutation No.100 dated 12.5.1976. Thereafter Shri Lachman died and mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned on 2.12.1982. In this mutation the shares of the parties and parentage of the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 has not been correctly mentioned. In the order of the Revenue Officer, Smt. Tari has been wrongly mentioned as widow of Milkhi. Similarly, Pawana and Vidya Devi have been wrongly mentioned as daughters of Shri Milkhi, whereas, they are daughters of deceased Mehru. This mutation has been incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1985-86 and accordingly in this jamabandi the share of the parties have been wrongly recorded. On the basis of these wrong revenue entries defendant No.1 sold her entire share in the suit land to defendants No.2 to 8. At the time of shale she was owner of 7/5th share i.e. 1/72 share but she sold 29/504 share which is in excess of the share owned by her in the suit land. Thus, the sale of the excess share made by defendant No.1 in favour of defendants No.2 to 8 is not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the plaintiffs No.5 to 6 have sold their 1/7th share in Khata No.42 and now they have 12/504 share in this khata. Similarly, the plaintiff No.1 who is owner of 42/504 share in the suit land has sold 36/504 share and now she is left with 6/504 shares. The plaintiffs have further alleged that the plaintiffs No.5 to 6 have sold their 1/7th share in Khata No.42 and now they have 12/504 share in this khata. Similarly, the plaintiff No.1 who is owner of 42/504 share in the suit land has sold 36/504 share and now she is left with 6/504 shares. Thus, all the plaintiffs and defendant No.9 have 137/504 share in Khata No.42 and 209/504 shares in Khata No.62 and defendants No.2 to 8, who have purchased the share of the defendant No.1 are owners of 7/504 shares in both of the khatas and entries In the revenue record showing them as owners of 36/504 shares are wrong, illegal, null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs and defendant No.9. 3. Defendants No.1 to 8 contested the suit and filed written statement, wherein, they have taken preliminary objection qua cause of action, misjoinder of parties, estoppel and maintainability. On merits, they have denied if the shares of the parties have been wrongly recorded in the revenue record. They have also denied if the plaintiff No.2 is the widow of Shri Mehru and the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are his daughters. According to them, no marriage could take place inter se plaintiff No.2 and Shri Mehru, during the life time of his first wife Smt. Melo Devi, defendant No.1. They have further pleaded that the mutation of inheritance of Shri Mehru has been wrongly and illegal sanctioned in favour of plaintiffs No.2 to 4. In the fact the estate of Shri Mehru was to devolve upon his mother, plaintiff No.1 and widow, defendant No.1 in equal shares. However, mutation of inheritance of Shri Lachman has been corrected sanctioned and attested. They have further pleaded that defendant No.1 had every right to sell her share in favour of defendants No.2 to 8, and, as such the sale made by her is legal and valid. The have denied the rest of the averments made by the plaintiffs in their plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication to the written statement of the defendant(s), wherein, they denied the contents of the written statement and re-affirmed and reasserted the averments, made in the plaint. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court struck the following issues inter-se the parties at contest:- 1. Whether Smt. Taro was legally wedded wife of late Shri Mehru, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are daughters of late Sh. Mehru, as alleged?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiffs and defendant No.9 are entitled to the shares in the suit land, as claimed?OPP. 4. Whether sale of the part of the suit land made by Smt. Melo Devi in favour of defendants No.2 to 8 is wrong, illegal, null and void?OPP. 5. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit?OPD. 7. Whether this suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD. 8. Relief. 6. On an appraisal of evidence, adduced before the learned trial Court, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/appellants herein. In an appeal, preferred therefrom, by, the defendants/respondents herein, before the learned First Appellate Court, the latter Court allowed, the, appeal, and, reversed the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 7. Now the plaintiffs/appellants herein, have instituted the instant Regular Second Appeal, before, this Court, wherein they assail the findings, recorded in its impugned judgment and decree, by the learned first Appellate Court. When the appeal came up for admission, this Court, on 03.04.2006, admitted the appeal instituted by the plaintiffs/appellants, against, the judgment and decree, rendered by the learned first Appellate Court, on the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether marriage of Taro with Mehru was void and based on misreading of the oral and documentary evidence? 2. Whether the findings of the first appellate Court that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are not entitled to inherit the estate of deceased Mehru, in view of the invalidity of the marriage between Mehru and Taro, are against the settled position of law? Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has during the course of arguments being addressed before this Court, has, submitted that he would not be pressing qua any answer being meted, visa-vis, substantial question of law No.1. Substantial questions of Law No.1 and 2: 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has during the course of arguments being addressed before this Court, has, submitted that he would not be pressing qua any answer being meted, visa-vis, substantial question of law No.1. However, he has contended wit much vigour (i) that the judgment in appeal before this Court, to, the extent qua its making a pronouncement, vis-a-vis, co-plaintiffs Pawna Devi and Vidya Devi, though both evidently being off springs begotten, in sequel, to an invalid/void marriage, entered inter se Taro, and, deceased Mehru, (ii) yet the effect of theirs being the off springs, rather from, a, void marriage, entered inter se Taro and deceased Mehru, rather would not spur any inference qua theirs being disentitled to succeed, to, the estate of deceased Mehru. Consequently, he has maintained, a, vigorous stand before this Court, that the verdict rendered by the learned first appellate Court, wherein, both Pawan Devi and Vidya Devi, stood, pronounced to be disentitled, to inherit the estate of deceased Mehru, hence, being apparently being flawed, and, its meriting interference by this Court. 9. The aforesaid submission addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing, for the appellants, obviously carries immense weight, and, is merit-worthy, given the Hon''ble Apex Court in a judgment rendered in a case titled as Jinia Keotin and others vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi & others , (2003) 1 SCC 730 , the relevant paragraphs No.4 and 5 whereof stand extracted hereinafter:- "4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. The Hindu Marriage Act underwent important changes by virtue of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976, which came into force with effect from 27.5.1976. Under the ordinary law, a child for being treated as legitimate must be born in lawful wedlock. If the marriage itself is void on account of contravention of the statutory prescriptions, any child born of such marriage would have the effect, per se, or on being so declared or annulled, as the case may be, of bastardizing the children born of the parties to such marriage. Polygamy, which was permissible and widely prevalent among the Hindus in the past and considered to have evil effects on society, came to be put an end to by the mandate of the Parliament in enacting the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Polygamy, which was permissible and widely prevalent among the Hindus in the past and considered to have evil effects on society, came to be put an end to by the mandate of the Parliament in enacting the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The legitimate status of the children which depended very much upon the marriage between their parents being valid or void, thus turned on the act of parents over which the innocent child had no hold or control. But, for no fault of it, the innocent baby had to suffer a permanent set back in life and in the eyes of society by being treated as illegitimate. A laudable and noble act of the legislature indeed in enacting Section 16 to put an end to a great social evil. At the same time, Section 16 of the Act, while engrafting a rule of fiction in ordaining the children, though illegitimate, to be treated as legitimate, notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable chose also to confine its application, so far as succession or inheritance by such children are concerned to the properties of the parents only. 5. So far as Section 16 of the Act is concerned, though it was enacted to legitimise children, who would otherwise suffer by becoming illegitimate, at the same time it expressly provide in Sub-section (3) by engrafting a provision with a non obstante clause stipulating specifically that nothing contained in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage, which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under Section 12, "any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents." In the light of such an express mandate of the legislature itself, there is no room for according upon such children who but for Section 16 would have been branded as illegitimate any further rights than envisaged therein by resorting to any presumptive or inferential process of reasoning, having recourse to the mere object or purpose of enacting Section 16 of the Act. Any attempt to do so would amount to doing not only violence to the provision specifically engrafted in Subsection (3) of Section 16 of the Act but also would attempt to court relegislating on the subject under the guise of interpretation, against even the will expressed in the enactment itself. Consequently, we are unable to countenance the submissions on behalf of the appellants. The view taken by the courts below cannot be considered to suffer from any serious infirmity to call for our interference, in this appeal." (i) making a clear expostulation of law qua with subsection (3) of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, hence, vis-a-vis, prior thereto provisions borne in subsection (1), and, subsection (2), whereunder, statutory legitimacy stands foisted upon a child, born out of a void and voidable marriage, rather standing explicitly statutorily pronounced therein, rather to operate, as, an apt non obstante clause, qua sub-section (1), and, subsection (2), of Section 16, of, the Act, (ii) and, its carrying, the, apt mandated consequence, vis-a-vis, the right of inheritance, of, off springs/legatees, from any void and voidable marriage, standing statutorily conferred, only, vis-a-vis, the estate of his/her/their parents, (iii) thereupon even if, co-appellants/plaintiffs No.3 and 4, namely, Pawana Devi and Vidya Devi, do, hence fall, within, the domain of sub-section (1) of Section 16, of, the Hindu Marriage Act, and, are to be concluded to be foisted with a virtue, of, statutory legitimacy, (iv) yet sequel thereof, is, qua theirs being entitled also to the benefit of sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, (v) and hence when their mother one Taro contracted, a void marriage with one Mehru, and, from void wedlock whereof, they are evidently begotten, they are hence statutorily entitled, to, inherit the estate of deceased Mehru. Provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act read as under:- "16. Provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act read as under:- "16. Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.(1) Notwithstanding that marriage is null and void under section 11, any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate, whether such child is born before or after the commencement of the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 (68 of 1976)*, and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under this Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under this Act. (2) Where a decree of nullity is granted in respect of a voidable marriage under section 12, any child begotten or conceived before the decree is made, who would have been the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage if at the date of the decree it had been dissolved instead of being annulled, shall be deemed to be their legitimate child notwithstanding the decree of nullity. (3) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be construed as conferring upon any child of a marriage which is null and void or which is annulled by a decree of nullity under section 12, any rights in or to the property of any person, other than the parents, in any case where, but for the passing of this Act, such child would have been incapable of possessing or acquiring any such rights by reason of his not being the legitimate child of his parents.]" 10. The above discussion, unfolds, that the conclusions as arrived by the learned first Appellate Court hence being not based, upon a proper and mature appreciation of evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned first Appellate Court has excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.2, is, answered in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs, and, against the defendants/respondents. 11. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is partly allowed and in sequel, appellants No. 3 and 4, namely, Pawna Devi and Vidya Devi are held entitled to succeed, to, the estate of deceased Mehru. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs. Records be sent back forthwith.