JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein (for short "the plaintiff"), instituted a suit bearing No. 309/1 of 1992, before the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P., claiming therein rendition, of, a declaratory decree, as, well as, rendition of, a, decree of injunction, vis-a- vis, the suit land (detailed in the plaint), and, against the defendants (i) in much, as, qua, hers becoming pronounced to be joint owner in possession of the suit land alongwith defendants No. 1 and 2, (ii) on, anvil, of, hers becoming declared to be, the, daughter of one Ram Lal, who, had purportedly solemnized, a, lawful marriage, with her mother, one Leela Wati. The plaintiff''s suit became dismissed by the learned trial Court, and, in an appeal reared thereagainst, by the plaintiff, before the learned Additional District Judge, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P, the latter Court, after, allowing the apposite Civil Appeal No. 174/13 of 2004/2000, hence set aside, the impugned therebefore judgment, rendered by the learned trial Court, and, hence pronounced, the, espoused decree(s), qua the plaintiff. 2. The defendants No.1 to 3/appellants herein (for short "defendants No. 1 to 3"), becoming aggrieved, therefrom constitute thereagainst, the, instant RSA before this Court, wherethrough, they strive to beget reversal, of, the verdict recorded, by, the learned first Appellate Court. 3. When the appeal came up for admission, before this Court, on, 2.11.2007, this Court admitted the extant appeal, on, the hereinafter extracted substantial questions of law:- "2. When the mother of the plaintiff Smt. Leela Wati who was guardian of the plaintiff at the relevant time did not assert her right to the estate of Shri Ram Lal Thakur in the capacity of legal wedded wife during her life time, for herself and the plaintiff could the plaintiff by showing an imaginary date of arising of cause of action file and maintain the present suit for the reliefs claimed when the succession to the estate of Sh. Ram Lal opened in the year 1957 when Shri Ram Lal died? Was not the suit of the plaintiff barred by limitation? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has misread the evidence and ignored the admissions of the plaintiff in her statement which was clinching evidence regarding her status which was claimed in the suit and in an erroneous and perverse manner granted decree to the plaintiff? Was not the suit of the plaintiff barred by limitation? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has misread the evidence and ignored the admissions of the plaintiff in her statement which was clinching evidence regarding her status which was claimed in the suit and in an erroneous and perverse manner granted decree to the plaintiff? Has not the Lower Appellate Court relied upon inadmissible or irrelevant evidence and ignored from consideration material evidence Ex. D-1 and D-2 entries in the Pariwar Register on erroneous considerations. 4. Whether the Lower Appellate Court has misunderstood and misapplied the provisions of Hindu marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act and Indian Evidence Act and determining the status of the plaintiff to be the daughter of Shri Ram Lal Thakur and Smt. Leela Wati to be legally wedded wife? Has not the Lower Appellate Court rendered Contradictory findings by wrongly relying upon the ratio of the judgments which were wholly irrelevant for determining the issues involved in the suit?" Substantial questions of law:- 4. The striking epicenter, of, the controversy engaging the contesting litigants, devolves upon, vis-a-vis, Leela Wati, firmly through cogent adduced evidence, rather establishing, hence alongwith all requisite ensuel effects thereof becoming visited, upon, the plaintiff, the apposite daughter, qua hers entering into a lawful wedlock, with, one Ram Lal, (a) and, or whether co-defendant No.2, Reeta Devi, uncontrovertedly born, from, the loins, of, one Ram Lal, and, from the womb, of, one Kamlapati becoming entitled, to, succeed, to, the estate of the afore, given upon hers, through cogent adduced evidence rather establishing qua her birth occurring, during, subsistence of, a lawful wedlock, inter-se, the afore, (b) whereupon(s), hence, either, of, the afore would become entitled, to, validly succeed, to, the estate of afore deceased Ram Lal. 5. Since, both the afore solemnized marriages, of, Ram Lal, with, the afore spouses rather occurred prior, to, the coming into force, of, Hindu Marriage Act (for short "Act"), (i) thereupon, the mandatory requirement enshrined therein, for, a, formidable inference being erected, vis-a-vis, either of his afore spouses, entering into, a, lawful wedlock, and, as comprised, in, the legally enjoined "Saptpati" becoming performed, (ii) or, the earlier of the apposite marriage(s) of the afore, with, his afore spouses namely Leelawati and Kamlapati, becoming annulled, through, adherence to customs, rather, prevailing, in, contemporaneity therewith, rather conspicuously, may not, assume hence any significance hereat. Moreover, in case, in the era prior, to, the coming into force of the Act, and, whereat, the afore marriages, became entered into, by one Ram Lal, and, who fathered both the plaintiff, and, co-defendant No.2, and, thereat, the uncontrovertedly prevailing customs assumed clout, and, with an apposite edict became borne therein, for, thereupon(s), through proven adherence thereto, hence, the marital ties, of, Kamlapati, or of Leelawati, with one Ram Lal, becoming validly severed, (i) yet pleadings in consonance therewith, became enjoined to become made in the plaint, or, in the written-statement, and, also evidence consonant therewith became enjoined hence to become adduced. However, neither the afore pleadings hence occur in the plaint, nor, in the written-statement, nor, any consonance therewith evidence becomes adduced. 6. Be that as it may, rather the absence(s), of, the afore pleadings, and, of consonant therewith evidence, did enjoin, firm upsurgings emanating, from, credible documentary evidence, vis-a-vis, Leela Wati, the mother of the plaintiff, or, Kamlapati, the mother of co-defendant No.2, holding, a valid lawful marriage with one Ram Lal, and, upon, each of the afore(s) adducing, the, afore credible documentary evidence, (i) thereupon, rather the suit of the plaintiff would not become dismissed, and, also obviously hence the challenged mutation, and, consequent therewith entries, as, borne in the apposite revenue records, would or would not assume, an, aura of validation. 7. The afore requisite documentary evidence, is, strived by the plaintiff, to, become borne in Ex. PW-1/A, exhibit whereof comprises, the, pension payment order, of, deceased Ram Lal, (a) wherein, one Leela Wati, becomes described to be his nominee, (b) and, hence when the afore document acquires, a, rebut-able presumption of truth, it, becoming prepared by the authorities concerned, during, the discharge of the official duties, (c) and, when rather the afore presumption remains, unstrived, to become rebutted, (d) thereupon, it acquires sanctity, and, moreso, vis-a-vis, its portraying qua deceased Ram Lal, accepting his entering into a lawful wedlock, with, Leela Wati, the mother of the plaintiff. Moreover, also Ex. Moreover, also Ex. PW-2/A, exhibit whereof, is the abstract of register of birth, as, maintained by the Officer concerned, hence unraveling, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, becoming fathered by one Ram Lal, and, when the afore unravelings, as, borne therein, also remain un-rebutted, thereupon, in face of the above(s), rather prima-facie at this stage, renders the espousal made in the plaint, by, the plaintiff, to both acquire merit, and, tenacity. 8. However, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, all the afore conclusive acquiescences, as, become borne rather in the afore exhibits rather hence become waned, and, also become subsidized, vis-a-vis, their vigor, as, the abstract of Pariwar Register, rather appertaining to the family of one Sant Ram, and, as embodied in Ex. D-1, though, casts reflections therein, vis-a-vis the family members, of, one Sant Ram. However, even through Ex. D-1, exhibit whereof, appertains to the family of Sant Ram, it, cannot become firmly gauged, whether the afore Leela Wati, the mother of the plaintiff, in, contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, hers entering, into, a purported lawful wedlock with one Ram Lal, hers previously thereto rather lawfully annulling her evident prior thereto marriage, with, the afore Sant Ram, as, becomes adversarially vis-a-vis the plaintiff hence contended, by, the defendants. However, the afore conundrum, vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, Leela wati, solemnizing marriage, with, Ram Lal, hers thereat not holding any subsisting valid wedlock, with, one Sant Ram, becomes rested, from, acquiescences made by the plaintiff, in, her cross-examination, wherein she accepts, vis-a-vis, Susheel Thakur, who becomes described in Ex. D-1, to be, a part of the family, of, Sant Ram, hence qua his being her brother, and, further when she also tacitly accepts, vis-avis the, afore becoming mothered, by one Leela Wati, also evidently her mother. D-1, to be, a part of the family, of, Sant Ram, hence qua his being her brother, and, further when she also tacitly accepts, vis-avis the, afore becoming mothered, by one Leela Wati, also evidently her mother. In sequel the significance thereof, is that, the afore Leela Wati, after, her marriage, with one Sant Ram, hers entering into an unlawful wedlock, with, Ram Lal, (i) and unless evidence became adduced rather significatory, vis-a-vis, either, the, afore Sant Ram, expiring in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, Leela Wati, entering into a wedlock with one Ram Lal, or, evidence became adduced, hence personifying qua after hers annulling, rather in consonance, with, the apposite customs prevailing thereat, her marital ties, with one Sant Ram, with whom she evidently held, the, apposite earlier marriage (ii) thereupon, alone it would become unflinchingly inferred, vis-a-vis, hers thereafter entering, into, a lawful marriage, with one Ram Lal, and, also hence, it would become concluded, that, the plaintiff becoming entitled rather alongwith co-defendant No.2, to, inherit the suit property. 9. However reiteratedly, given neither, the afore factum probandum, becoming pleaded nor consonant therewith evidence, become adduced, (i) thereupon, the effect, of, the afore acquiescences is, rather, vis-a-vis, in contemporaneity, vis-a-vis, the mother of the plaintiff, one Leela Wati, entering into a wedlock with Ram Lal, hers also holding a valid and unannulled marriage, with, one Sant Ram, and, further hence, the, marriage entered inter-se Leela Wati, and, one Ram Lal, rather not holding, any, traces or traits, qua, its becoming construable, to be, a, lawful wedlock. 10. Moreover as afore-stated, since, the afore marriage occurred, in, the era prior, to, the coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, (i) thereupon the mandate borne in Section 16(3), of, the Act, provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, and, hence ascribing legitimacy, vis-a-vis, those offspring begotten, from, void and voidable marriage, as, hereat is the genre, of, the marriage, which became entered, inter-se, one Leela Wati, and, one Ram Lal, (ii) and, with a further statutory consequence thereto vis-a-vis hence the plaintiff, yet becoming entitled, to, succeed to the estate of one Ram Lal. Nonetheless reiteratedly, the, afore statutory bestowments, as, may therethrough ensue, vis-a-vis those children as become begotten, from, any void or voidable marriage entered, into inter-se, the spouses concerned, rather becomes un-attractable, vis-a-vis, the plaintiff, as, the afore provisions came into force, in, the year 1955, whereas, the requisite marriage, as became entered into, inter-se, Leela Wati with one Ram Lal, became entered, in, the year 1946, rendering hence defacilitated the plaintiff, to, upon the afore, hence validly claim, the, espoused decree(s). "(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." 11. In sequel, the plaintiff is not entitled to inherit, the, estate of her deceased father. Accordingly, the instant appeal stands allowed, and, the impugned judgment and decree rather suffers, from, a gross mis-appreciation and absurdity of evidence on record, and, also of law, and, it warrants its being undone, and, hence, it stands quashed and set aside. Substantial questions of law are answered accordingly. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.