JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The defendant is the appellant, who after having lost before both the learned Courts below, have filed the instant regular second appeal. The parties shall be referred to as the plaintiffs and defendant. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that late Shri Gauri Sukh was having six sons and all of them constituted a joint family in the life time as well as after the death of Sh. Gauri Sukh. All sons of Sh. Gauri Sukh namely Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, Sh. Tulsi Ram, Sh.Vidya Jeet, Sh.Padam Chand, Sh. Ram Chander and Sh.Bhadur Chand, were having a common wife namely Smt. Sanam Patti as per custom of Kinnaur District to which the parties belong. From this marriage, one son named Dandup Giachho, plaintiff No.3 and two daughters were born and all of them are alive. It was averred that as per custom of Kinnaur District the sons and daughters born from the common wife are considered to be the sons and daughters of last surviving brothers and in the same way the property is also considered to be the property of last surviving brother. Out of the aforesaid six brothers, four have died and only plaintiffs No.1 and 2 namely Sh. Padam Chand and Sh. Bhadur Chand are surviving. So, now plaintiff No.3 and two daughters will be considered as son and daughters of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and after the death of plaintiffs No.1 and 2 the entire property in their hands would be inherited by plaintiff No.3 because as per custom the daughters are only entitled for life estate. It was further averred that now the entire property so left by late Shri Gauri Sukh and thereafter by his elder son is at present in the possession of the plaintiffs. Late Shri Jangchuk Giachho was the eldest son of late Shri Gauri Sukh, who during his life time had illicit relations with a lady named Smt. Naure of the same village and out of this relation an illegitimate son named Sh. Gopal Sain i.e. defendant was born who was brought up by his mother. Late Shri Jangchuk Giachho was the eldest son of late Shri Gauri Sukh, who during his life time had illicit relations with a lady named Smt. Naure of the same village and out of this relation an illegitimate son named Sh. Gopal Sain i.e. defendant was born who was brought up by his mother. In District Kinnaur, a son born out of illicit relations of a man and woman is called ‘JATTU’ and such son does not have any right in the estate of his so called father and after the death of father, such illegitimate son does not have any right or claim over the property left by such father. Shri Jangchuk Giachho had died about 28 years back and after his death, his estate was inherited by his surviving brothers and since then plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have been holding the entire landed and house property knowing fully well that late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho had an illegitimate son i.e. the defendant. Despite the repeated demand from the side of defendant, the plaintiffs did not give any land to the defendant in lieu of maintenance out of the share of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. Therefore, such denial on the part of the plaintiffs and his brother dis-entitled the defendant to take any share out of the share of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho because the plaintiffs are also claiming themselves to be the absolute owners even by way of adverse possession qua the interest of defendant, if any, in the share of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. It was further averred by the plaintiffs that the defendant had purchased the landed property in village Labrang out of his own earnings and he is having such property exclusively. He is also having his own family, but after the purchase of land, the defendant managed to enter his name as the son of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho in the pedigree table prepared by the revenue authorities. The plaintiffs came to know about this entry in the month of January, 2004 and thereafter they asked the defendant that why he had entered himself to be the son of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho and he openly proclaimed that he would claim half share in the entire property so left by late Sh. Gauri Sukh which presently is in the possession of plaintiffs. Jangchuk Giachho and he openly proclaimed that he would claim half share in the entire property so left by late Sh. Gauri Sukh which presently is in the possession of plaintiffs. Such threat issued by the defendant is totally against the custom prevalent in Kinnaur District and if this entry remains unchallenged, then the defendant would create trouble to the plaintiffs on the basis of such wrong entry. So, the plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration that the defendant is the JATTU (illegitimate son) of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho and the entry in the pedigree table or where ever showing the defendant to be the son of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho is illegal and liable to be changed. 3. The suit was contested and opposed by the defendant on the grounds of estoppel, limitation, maintainability, cause of action and locus-standi etc. On merits, it was averred by the defendant that six sons of late Sh. Guari Sukh were not having only one common wife namely Sanam Patti, but Sh. Jangchuk Giachho was having one another wife namely Smt. Norjang Butith, mother of defendant. In the beginning, Smt. Norjang Butith served as a maid servant for about two years and in the meantime Sh. Jangchuk Giachho had fallen in love with her and this love affair ended up in marriage and out of this wedlock a male child namely Sh. Gopal Sain, defendant, was born, who was brought up in the same house and remained there for more than 30 years after his birth and he was treated and accepted as second son, the first being plaintiff No.3 Sh. Dandup Giachho. Not only this, the defendant Shri Gopal Sain and plaintiff No.3 Sh. Dandup Giachho shared one wife namely Smt. Sushila Devi for at least two years, but later on, differences arose between the defendant and plaintiff No.3 because of which the defendant had to quit the house and started living separately. It was further averred that as per custom prevalent in the area when a girl is married to a number of brothers, a special marriage ceremony is observed, according to which, each brother is required to put on a turban called ‘Pag Likshimu’ in order to get the status of a husband and the defendant took part in that special ceremony along with his step brother Sh. Dandup Giachho. Dandup Giachho. The defendant has not denied the custom prevalent in the area regarding inheritance of property as well as that the sons and daughters are considered to be the sons and daughters of the last surviving brothers. However, the defendant averred that as per custom in the area in case of more than one wife of several brothers, a child born from such wives are entitled to inherit the property in equal share along with his brothers and, therefore, after the death of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, the defendant would ultimately be considered to be the son of last surviving brothers i.e. plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and after their death, he would be entitled to inherit them in equal share with plaintiff No.3 Sh. Dandup Giachho. The defendant denied that he is the JATTU or illegitimate son of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. According to the defendant, the plaintiffs have challenged his legitimacy after a long period of 28 years and they kept silent for about 30 years after the death of Jangchuk Giachho. It was also averred by the defendant that since he is the son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, therefore, the entry has been made to this effect in the ‘Parvivar’ register of Gram Panchayat, Labrang and electoral roll for the year 2002 which documents are unchallenged uptill now. The defendant has denied that he had demanded any property in lieu of maintenance out of his share of his father Sh. Jangchuk Giachho and further denied that the plaintiffs had dis-entitled him to take any share out of the share of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho alleging that there was no necessity for him to claim any maintenance etc. because he was actively participating in the household affairs. The defendant has also denied that he managed to enter himself to be the son of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho in the pedigree table prepared by the revenue authorities. According to defendant, the revenue authorities had made entry after making proper inquiry and now the plaintiffs cannot agitate this matter because they never raised any objection at the earliest possible opportunity. In a nutshell, the defendant has claimed that he is not the illegitimate son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed. In a nutshell, the defendant has claimed that he is not the illegitimate son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief claimed. Lastly, the defendant prayed that in case he is not declared to be the legitimate son of Shri Jangchuk Giachho, in that event, he may be granted some portion of landed property in lieu of maintenance. 4. The plaintiffs filed replication wherein apart from denying the other averments, they have denied that defendant is the legitimate son of late Shri Jangchuk Giachho, there was any marriage between Sh. Jangchuk Giachho and the mother of the defendant and further denied that there was common marriage of defendant and plaintiff No.3 with Smt. Sushila Devi. 5. The learned trial Court framed the following issues on 09.08.2004:- “1. Whether the defendant is Jattu (illegitimate son) of late Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, as alleged, if so its effect? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD. 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 5. Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action against defendant No.1, as alleged? OPD. 6. Whether the plaintiffs have no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD. 7. Relief.” 6. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence and evaluating the same decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs. The defendant though filed an appeal before the learned first appellate Court, however the same was dismissed, constraining the defendant to file the present appeal. 7. This Court vide order dated 04.12.2006 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence in coming to the conclusion that the defendant is Jattu (illegitimate) s/o late Jangchuk Giachho?” 8. 7. This Court vide order dated 04.12.2006 admitted the appeal on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the oral as well as documentary evidence in coming to the conclusion that the defendant is Jattu (illegitimate) s/o late Jangchuk Giachho?” 8. It is not in dispute that the parties in this case are schedule tribes within the meaning of Clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution, therefore, the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, are not applicable to them by virtue of Section 2(2) contained therein which reads thus :- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section(1), nothing contained in this Act shall apply to the members of any Scheduled Tribe within the meaning of clause (25) of Article 366 of the Constitution unless the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, otherwise directs.” 9. Even though, the parties are not governed by the Hindu Succession Act, however they are governed by custom and such custom is to be found in the ‘Wazib-Ul-Arz’ Ex. PW1/B. 10. It is more than settled that ‘Wazib-Ul-Arz’ is the part of the records of rights and entries in it are, therefore, presumed to be correct, but are capable of rebuttal. ( Refer: Gian Singh and others versus State of H.P. and others, AIR 1996, HP 38 (DB). 11. As noticed above, the entire basis of the claim of the plaintiffs is that the defendant is an illegitimate son of Jangchuk Giachho, whereas, the defendant is claiming himself to be his legitimate son. 12. Adverting to the evidence, it would be noticed that PW-1 is the plaintiff Bahadur Chand, who while appearing in the witness box reiterated the contents of the plaint. 13. PW-2 Dandup Giachho is plaintiff No.3, who deposed that he is the sole son born out of the wedlock of his father Jangchuk Giachho and his six brothers with his mother Smt. Sanam Patti. He is also having two sisters namely Smt. Sunder Devi and Lobzang Dolma from the same marriage. Out of the aforesaid six brothers, four namely Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, Sh. Vidyajeet, Ram Chander and Tulsi Ram have died and after their death, their property is coming in the hands of the plaintiffs. He being the only son of the aforesaid brothers is entitled to inherit them. Out of the aforesaid six brothers, four namely Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, Sh. Vidyajeet, Ram Chander and Tulsi Ram have died and after their death, their property is coming in the hands of the plaintiffs. He being the only son of the aforesaid brothers is entitled to inherit them. He further deposed that in the year 1976, he got married with Smt. Sushila Devi, resident of village Labrang and out of this marriage, five children have been born. The defendant never remained in the house nor he performed joint marriage with him. On the other hand, defendant is married with one Smt. Chhonind Jangmo, resident of Labrang and is having four sons from this marriage. The defendant is living separately in his separate house and he has also purchased some land and some land has also been obtained by him by way of ‘nautor’. 14. PW-3 Sh. Hesu Ram has corroborated the versions of PW-1 and PW-2. 15. PW-4, Sh. Diwan Chand, is the Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Labrang and has proved on record the photocopies of the ‘Pariwar’ register of Tulsi Ram and defendant Gopal Sain, Ex.PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B, respectively. Besides this, the plaintiffs have filed copy of the pedigree table Ex.PW1/A and copy of ‘Wazib-Ul-Arz’ Ex. PW1/B. 16. On the other hand, the defendant examined four witnesses. Defendant himself appeared as DW-1 and in his statement he deposed almost the same facts as alleged by him in the written statement. 17. DW-2 is Sh. Ram Dayal,who deposed that he is a resident of village Labrang and the parties are known to him. According to him, defendant is the son of Jangchuk Giachho and Smt. Norjang Butith as there was love marriage between them. He further deposed that defendant remained in the house of Jangchuk Giachho as son four about 30 years and shared profit and loss of the family. Not only this, the defendant and plaintiff No.3 Sh. Dandup Giachho were jointly married with Smt. Sushila Devi and they remained as such for some years and thereafter defendant separated himself. 18. DW-3 Sh. Bhag Rattan has deposed on the similar lines as deposed by DW-2. Lastly, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Labrang, once again appeared as DW-4 and proved the ‘Pariwar’ register of the defendant wherein he is shown as the son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. 18. DW-3 Sh. Bhag Rattan has deposed on the similar lines as deposed by DW-2. Lastly, the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Labrang, once again appeared as DW-4 and proved the ‘Pariwar’ register of the defendant wherein he is shown as the son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. He has also proved on record the copy of the electoral roll for the year 2002 Ex.DW4/C showing the defendant as son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. 19. It is more than established that to prove a marriage between man and woman, strict proof is required, which is absent in the instant case. No doubt, the law frowns upon illegitimacy, but once the custom draws a distinction between the legitimate and illegitimate child, then the custom has to be implemented with all its rigors, irrespective of the consequences. 20. No doubt, the law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage and on him, who challenges the legitimacy must be thrown the burden of proving it. Thus, where a party admits the paternity of other party but pleads that he is of illegitimate descent, the legal presumption being in favour of legitimacy, the onus lies on the party alleging illegitimacy to prove it. (Refer: Kanhaiya Bux Singh vs. Ram Dei Kuer, AIR 1944 Oudh 162, Gurcharan Singh vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460 , Dularey Singh vs. Suraj Bali, AIR 1918 Oudh 103 and Palani Ammal vs. Kuppusami Goundan, AIR 1921 Mad. 291). 21. There can be no dispute about the fact that the defendant is in fact son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, but the question is whether he is ‘JATTU’ (illegitimate) or the legitimate son. In this background, the defence of the defendant needs to be noted where he himself claims to have been born to Smt. Norjang Butith from the loins of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, who admittedly at the relevant time was already married to Sanam Patti as per the custom of Kinnaur District. 22. It would be noticed that even though the defendant was born to Norjang Butith, but there is no evidence worth the name which may even remotely suggest, much less prove that she was legally married to Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. All the witness examined by the plaintiffs have deposed that there was no marriage between Sh. 22. It would be noticed that even though the defendant was born to Norjang Butith, but there is no evidence worth the name which may even remotely suggest, much less prove that she was legally married to Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. All the witness examined by the plaintiffs have deposed that there was no marriage between Sh. Jangchuk Giachho and Smt. Norjang Butith and the birth of defendant was the result of illicit relations between them because at that time the mother of the defendant Smt. Norjang Butith was admittedly working as a maid in the house of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. It is for this precise reason that the name of the defendant is not recorded in the family of the plaintiffs, as is evident from Ex. PW4/A. On the other hand, the stand of the defendant is established from Ex.PW4/B that he has been maintaining his separate family. Notably, the defendant’s case from the very beginning is that his mother Smt. Norjang Butith was the legally wedded wife of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, but surprisingly her name does not find mention in the ‘Pariwar’ register of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho or any other document. 23. That apart, it would be noticed that as per entries in the ‘Wazib-Ul-Arz’, there is no bar for having two legally wedded wives, where the children born out of this wedlock are entitled to succeed, but as regards the children born out of the unlawful relations, such heir is known as ‘JATTU’ and not entitled to any share in the property and is only entitled to maintenance, as would be evident from the clauses of Ex. PW1/B, which are reproduced as under :- ^^?k% ;fn ,d O;fDr dh n¨ fookfgr ifRu;ka g¨a v©j muesa Lks fdLkh ,d iRUkh dh Lo;a iSnk djnk Hkweh g¨ r¨ mldh Ek`R;q ds mijkaRk bLk Hkweh ds mRRkjkf/kdkjh ml iRuh ds xHkZ ls mRiUu gqbZ iq=@iq=h g¨axsA N% ;fn fdlh O;fDr dh n¨ ;k vf/kd fookfgr ifRu;ksa ds xHkZ ls larku mRiUu gS] r® og fojklr dh cjkcj gdnkj gksxhA ´% ftyk fdUuSkj esa voS/k iq= ftldks LFkkuh; Hkk”kk esa ^^tkVw** dgrs gSa] iwjs fgLls dk gdnkj ugha gksrkA dsoy mLls xqtkjs ds fy;s Hkweh nh tkrh gSA 24. No doubt, the witnesses of the defendant have tried to prove that Norjang Butith was the legally wedded wife of Sh. No doubt, the witnesses of the defendant have tried to prove that Norjang Butith was the legally wedded wife of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, but then the testimonies of these witnesses are not at all reliable and are otherwise totally insufficient to prove the alleged marriage. That apart, it would be seen that these witnesses are closely related to the defendant as DW-3 Sh. Bhag Rattan is son of his maternal uncle, whereas, DW-2 Sh. Ram Dayal is the husband of sister of his mother. Therefore, it appears that both these witnesses have deposed in favour of the defendant only because of their relationship with him. This can clearly be gathered from analyzing their statements wherein they have admitted in their cross examinations that they have no knowledge about the fact that any marriage had taken place between Smt. Norjang Butith and Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. 25. No doubt, the defendant has been shown as son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho in exhibits DW4/A to DW4/C, but then there is no dispute about this fact because as observed above, the main question to be decided is whether he is the legitimate son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho out of the relations that were established by his mother Smt. Norjang Butith with Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. 26. Shri Ajay Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, learned counsel for the appellant/defendant has vehemently contended that defendant is the legitimate son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho out of his relations with his mother Smt. Norjang Butith and defendant along with plaintiff No.3 Sh. Dandup Giachho had performed common marriage with one Smt. Sushila Devi and this common marriage was performed only because defendant was considered to be the son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. However, I find no merits in this contention as practically there is no evidence available on record to prove this fact. No doubt, there are oral testimonies of DW-2 and DW-3, but as already discussed above, they are not reliable witnesses and their testimonies are, therefore, hardly of any advantage to the defendant. 27. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have led sufficient evidence to prove that there was no legal and valid marriage solemnized by Sh. Jangchuk Giachho with the mother of defendant Smt. Norjang Butith. She was taken as a maid and continued to reside in the house of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. 28. 27. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have led sufficient evidence to prove that there was no legal and valid marriage solemnized by Sh. Jangchuk Giachho with the mother of defendant Smt. Norjang Butith. She was taken as a maid and continued to reside in the house of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho. 28. That apart, it was incumbent upon the defendant to have led clear, cogent and convincing evidence to show that he along with plaintiff No.3 had performed common marriage with one Smt. Sushila Devi. On the contrary, it has come on record that the defendant had solemnized marriage with one Chhonind Jangmo resident of village Labrang and was having four sons from this marriage. 29. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no difficulty to conclude that even though the defendant is the son of Sh. Jangchuk Giachho, but he is only a ‘JATTU’ (illegitimate son) and, is, therefore, not entitled to inherit his property. He is only entitled to maintenance. 30. The substantial question of law, referred to above, is answered accordingly. 31. Accordingly, I find no merits in this appeal and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.