JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior counsel for the appellant, assisted by Mr. K. Laldinliana. Also heard Mr. L.H Lianhrima, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Ruth Lalruatfeli. 2. This is a second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 against the Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in RFA No. 28/2014. By the impugned Judgment & Order, the first Appellate Court had set aside the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2014 passed by Civil Judge, Aizawl in Heirship Certificate Case No. 71/2009. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the appeal may be noticed at the outset. 3. One Shri. Rokamlova @ Rokama, who was working as a Peon in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl District, Aizawl got married to Lalnunziri and out of their marriage, four children were born including a daughter namely Melody Rosangzuali. Due to adultery committed by Lalnunziri, Rokamlova and Lalnunziri were divorced. Rokamlova then married Lalnunziri, i.e., the appellant, by way of Mizo Christian Custom on 15.10.1990 and their marriage subsisted till the death of Rokamlova on 02.06.2009. Out of their marriage, a son name Rosangliana was born to them on 28.11.1992. Shri. Rokamlova, according to the respondent No. 1, married her by giving the bride’s price to her father as per the Mizo Christian Custom and a son name Malsawmzuala was born to them on 05.05.2009. Shri. Rokamlova then expired on 02.06.2009. 4. The daughter of late Rokamlova with his first wife Lalnunziri namely, Melody Rosangzuali submitted an application for Heirship Certificate before the Magistrate First Class, District Council Court, Aizawl in respect of the service benefits of his late father as per the family agreement annexed to the Heirship Certificate application. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, Addl. Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl granted Heirship Certificate Case No. 71/2009 whereby, it was provided that Lalrinzuali, the third wife of Rokamlova would get the family pension and Melody Rosangzuali, daughter of late Rokamlova would get DCRG, SGEGIS and leave salary, etc. 5. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate, Addl. Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl granted Heirship Certificate Case No. 71/2009 whereby, it was provided that Lalrinzuali, the third wife of Rokamlova would get the family pension and Melody Rosangzuali, daughter of late Rokamlova would get DCRG, SGEGIS and leave salary, etc. 5. The appellant upon coming to learn about the Heirship Certificate filed Review Case No. 10/2010 before the Sub-District Council Court, Aizawl praying for cancellation of Heirship Certificate, insofar as, it declared the respondent No. 1 to be the legal heir of Rokamlova in respect of family pension. The review case was contested by the respondent by filing written objection and also counter claim against the proforma respondent. The proforma respondent had also submitted a written objection explaining that the service benefits like DCRG, SEGIS and leave salary had been distributed amongst all the children of late Rokamlova. The proforma respondent had also submitted a written statement against the counter claim made by the respondent against her. The Sub-District Council Court vide Judgment & Order dated 26.04.2011 dismissed the review petition and being aggrieved, the appellant preferred Civil Revision Petition i.e. CRP No. 4/2011 before this Court. The same was disposed of vide Order dated 13.02.2011 by remanding the matter back to the learned Civil Judge-I, Aizawl for fresh decision in respect of the issuance of Heirship Certificate of late Rokamlova by confining the exercise only to the issue of family pension. The Heirship Certificate dated 26.06.2011 and the order passed in the review petition were accordingly set aside. 6. On remand, the parties except the proforma respondent No. 2 appeared before the Trial Court. The respondent No. 1 submitted her application for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of the family pension by annexing documents, such as the list of names of persons, who had a share in the bride’s price (maneitute list), birth certificate of Malsawmzuala, Death Certificate of Rokamlova, family declaration made by Late Rokamlova and the family ration card. The appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 both had examined 2 (two) witnesses each, including themselves. The learned Civil Judge, thereafter, upon hearing the parties, passed the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2014 and the Decree dated 12.08.2014 declaring the appellant as the legal wife of the deceased. Accordingly, Heirship Certificate in respect of family pension was directed to be issued in favour of the appellant. The learned Civil Judge, thereafter, upon hearing the parties, passed the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2014 and the Decree dated 12.08.2014 declaring the appellant as the legal wife of the deceased. Accordingly, Heirship Certificate in respect of family pension was directed to be issued in favour of the appellant. However, since the deceased had a child with the respondent No. 1 namely Malsawmzuala, it was directed that both the appellant and Malsawmzuala will receive the family pension in equal shares. 7. Being dissatisfied with the judgment & order, the respondent filed an appeal before the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl i.e. RFA No. 28/2014 and the learned Appellate Court after hearing the parties modified the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2014 by declaring the respondent as the legal wife of the deceased and entitled to receive the family pension of the deceased Government Servant. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in second appeal. 8. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the deceased Government servant and the appellant were married on 15.10.1990 as per the Mizo Christian Marriage and they were never divorced at any point of time. He submits that their marriage subsisted till Rokamlova expired, on 02.06.2009. Therefore, the appellant being the legally wedded wife of the late Government servant, she has the right to receive family pension and that the judgment & order passed by the Trial Court should be upheld. As for the respondent No. 1, the learned Senior Counsel submits that the late Government servant was never married to her and at the most, she had co-habited with the late Government servant which cannot be considered as a lawful marriage for the purpose of entitling her to receive family pension. He further submits that the respondent No. 1 did not exhibit any document in support of her contention that she was legally married to the late Government servant and therefore, in absence of any such evidence led and proved before the Trial Court, the learned Trial Court rightly rejected the claim of the respondent while the learned First Appellate Court committed error in relying upon such un-exhibited documents. 9. The learned senior counsel further submits that as per the Mizo Customary Law, a recognised marriage is one performed by an authorised person after negotiation had been completed through go-between by the families of the marrying parties. 9. The learned senior counsel further submits that as per the Mizo Customary Law, a recognised marriage is one performed by an authorised person after negotiation had been completed through go-between by the families of the marrying parties. Whereas, in the present case, there is no evidence to show that such process was adopted and therefore, the claim of the respondent No. 1 that she and the late Government servant were married to each other cannot be accepted. The learned senior counsel also submits that a party who wishes to rely upon the contents of a document must adduce primary evidence of the contents. In a case where original document was not produced at any time nor any factual foundation laid for giving secondary evidence, it would not be permissible for the Court to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence. In the present case, the respondent No. 1 having failed to exhibit and prove the documents relied by her, the First Appellant Court only committed error in relying upon such documents to reverse the finding of the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment & order should be interfered with by this Court. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel has relied upon the following authorities:- (1) U. Sree vs. U. Srinivas, (2013) 2 SCC 114 . (2) Judgment & Order dated 11.05.2017 passed by this Court in RFA No. 9/2012 (Shri. Lalthanmawia vs. Union of India & Anr.) (3) G.L Bhatia vs. Union of India & Anr., (1999) 5 SCC 237 . (4) Smt. Violet Isaac & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., (1991) 1 SCC 725 . 10. Mr. L.H Lianhrima, learned Senior counsel, on the other hand, submits that the appellant has not challenged the documents produced by the respondent, such as family declaration, ration card and the certificate issued by the Village Council concerned which states that the deceased Government servant was married to the respondent No. 1. To substantiate his submission, the learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the written statement-cum-counter claim submitted by the appellant before the learned Trial Court. The learned senior counsel submits that in terms of Order-VIII Rule 3 of the CPC, a defendant is required to deny or dispute the statements made in the plaint categorically. To substantiate his submission, the learned senior counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the written statement-cum-counter claim submitted by the appellant before the learned Trial Court. The learned senior counsel submits that in terms of Order-VIII Rule 3 of the CPC, a defendant is required to deny or dispute the statements made in the plaint categorically. Evasive denial would amount to an admission on the allegation made in the plaint in terms of the said provision. In short, he submits that failure to make specific denial amounts to admission. In this connection, the learned senior counsel relies upon the following authorities:- (1) Jaspal Kaur Cheema & Anr. vs. Industrial Trade Links & Ors., (2017) 8 SCC 592 . (2) Sushil Kumar vs. Rekesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673 . (3) Bhuwan Singh vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., (2009) 5 SCC 136 . (4) Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors. vs. Shantadevi P. Gaekwad., (2005) 11 SCC 314 . 11. The learned senior counsel further submits that the late Government servant, during his lifetime, declared the respondent No. 1 as his wife in the proforma prescribed for submitting the details of family members in terms of Section 4(1) of CCS (M.A) Rules, 1944. Referring to the evidence of the respondent No. 1 in her examination-in-chief, the learned senior counsel submits that the respondent No. 1 clearly stated that she was married with the deceased Government servant by way of Mizo custom and tradition and the bride’s price was received by her parents. Out of their marriage, Malsawmzuala was born on 05.05.2009. The said evidence of the respondent No. 1 was neither shaken nor falsified during her cross-examination by the opposite party and therefore, there is no dispute regarding the marriage of the respondent No. 1 with the deceased Government Servant. The learned senior counsel also submits that as per the Mizo Customary Law, there is no prescription for solemnization of a marriage. The learned senior counsel also submits that as per the Mizo Customary Law, there is no prescription for solemnization of a marriage. Referring to Chapter-III of the Mizo Customary Law, the learned senior counsel submits that recognised marriage is the one performed by an authorized person and in the instant case, the parents of the marrying parties are the authorized persons and that it is in evidence that the bride’s price was paid to the father of the respondent No. 1 and that PW-2, who is the brother of the respondent No. 1, clearly deposed before the Trial Court that he had also received a share of the bride’s price amounting to Rs. 20/-. Therefore, there cannot be any dispute to the fact that the deceased Government servant and the respondent No. 1 were married to each other. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal according to the learned senior counsel should be dismissed. The learned senior counsel has also relied upon the case of Chamunya vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr., (2011) 1 SCC 141 to contend that presumption of marriage is always in favour of the parties concerned unless such presumption is rebutted by strong and satisfactory evidence. 12. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 13. On 25.02.2016, this Court while admitting the appeal had formulated the following substantial question of law:- “1. Whether the Ld. Lower Appellate Court had rightly declared the Respondent as the legal/real wife of the deceased Rokama inspite of no legal/valid marriage between the deceased and the Respondent. 2. Whether the Ld. Lower Appellate Court was right in relying upon the un-exhibited documents such as “Man Inhlanna Lehkha” (Bride-Price Document) dt. 9/10/08, the Family Ration Card and the Details of Family (Family Declaration) for holding that the Respondent is the real wife/widow of the deceased. 3. Whether the Appellant, who is the only legal wife of the deceased, is entitled to be given the benefit of Family Pension of the deceased as per law.” 14. 9/10/08, the Family Ration Card and the Details of Family (Family Declaration) for holding that the Respondent is the real wife/widow of the deceased. 3. Whether the Appellant, who is the only legal wife of the deceased, is entitled to be given the benefit of Family Pension of the deceased as per law.” 14. Coming to the first substantial question of law, it may be seen that the respondent No. 1 in order to establish that she was married to the deceased Government servant in accordance with the Mizo Customary Law had submitted an application for issuance of Heirship Certificate in her favour in respect of family pension on 11.09.2012, after the matter was remanded back to the learned Civil Judge-I, Aizawl for fresh decision vide order dated 13.02.2011 passed by this Court in CRP No. 4/2011. By the said application, the respondent No. 1 annexed the documents such as sharing of bride’s price, birth certificate of Malsawmzuala, Death Certificate of Rokamlova, Heirship Certificate No. 71/2009, family declaration and family ration card as Annexure-A, B, C, D, E & F respectively. However, none of these documents were exhibited by the respondent No. 1 before the learned Trial Court. Further, even if such documents are exhibited by the party concerned, the same has to be proved by the author of the documents in the mode and manner as prescribed by Chapter-V of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). 15. In the present case, it may be seen that the respondent No. 1 apart from herself, examined her brother as PW-2. The PW-2 being the brother of the respondent No. 1 is not an independent witness. However, his evidence solely on the ground of being related to respondent No. 1 cannot be discarded but at the same time, the respondent No. 1 would be required produce independent witnesses to support the version of her brother and the documents submitted by her through her application dated 11.09.2012. It may further be seen that the respondent No. 1 in her cross-examination also stated that she did not marry the late Government Servant neither in Church nor before the Court and there was no marriage ceremony. It may further be seen that the respondent No. 1 in her cross-examination also stated that she did not marry the late Government Servant neither in Church nor before the Court and there was no marriage ceremony. The fact of there being marriage ceremony or being married in a Church or a Court may not be the pre-condition to qualify a marriage under the Mizo Customary Law but the fact remains that the party claiming to have such marriage has to prove the marriage by adducing cogent and reliable evidence in the manner as prescribed by law. The same having not been done, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and against the respondents. 16. Insofar as the second substantial question of law is concerned, in view of the finding and opinion rendered by this Court on the first substantial question of law, no separate consideration is required. In other words, the same is answered in terms of the findings on the first substantial question of law. 17. In respect of the third substantial question of law, it may be seen that there is no dispute to the fact that the pension payable to the late Government servant is covered by the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (Pension Rules). Rule 54 deals with the family pension and Rule 54(6) provides for the period for which family pension is payable to different members of the pensionary concerned. There is no dispute to the fact that the appellant was legally married to the deceased Government servant and therefore, being the widow of the late Government servant, she would be entitled to receive the family pension. It may, however, be seen that Rule 54(19) of the CCS Pension Rules provides as follows:- “(19) Eligibility of children from a void or voidable marriage for family pension.---The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s O.M No. 1/16/96-P&PW (E), dated 2-12-1996, whereby it was clarified that pensionary benefits will be granted to children of a deceased Government servant/pensioner from void or voidable marriages when their turn comes in accordance with Rule 54 (8). It is mentioned in Para. 4 of the O.M. that “It may be noted that they will have no claim whatsoever to receive family pension as long as the legally wedded wife is the recipient of the same. 2. It is mentioned in Para. 4 of the O.M. that “It may be noted that they will have no claim whatsoever to receive family pension as long as the legally wedded wife is the recipient of the same. 2. The matter has been re-examined in consultation with the Ministry of Law and Justice (Department of Legal Affairs) and Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). It has been decided that in supersession of Para. 4 of the O.M., ibid, dated 2-12-1996, the share of children from illegally wedded wife in the family pension shall be payable to them in the manner given under sub-rule 7 (c) of Rule 54 of CCS (Pension Rules), 1972, along with the legally wedded wife.” 18. From the above abstract, it may be seen that the children from void or voidable marriage are eligible for family pension in accordance with Rule 54(8) of the Pension Rules. However, when the legally wedded wife of the Government servant is the recipient of the pension, no claim can be made by the other class of family members eligible to receive pension. This, however, has been subsequently clarified by providing that the share of children from legally wedded wife in the family pension shall be payable to them in the manner given under sub-Rule 7(c) of Rule 54 of the Pension Rules along with the legally wedded wife. Therefore, besides the appellant, the son of the deceased Government servant Malsawmzuala, who admittedly is a minor, would be eligible to receive 50% of the family pension. Therefore, substantial question No. 3 stands answered accordingly. 19. It is a well settled principle of law that facts admitted need not be proved as highlighted in the authorities referred to by the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 namely, Jaspal Kaur Cheema & Anr. (supra), Sushil Kumar (supra), Bhuwan Singh (supra), Sangramsinh P. Gaekwad & Ors. (supra). However, the issue here is that the respondent No. 1 has failed to establish the fact of her marriage with the late Government servant by exhibiting the relevant documents and prove the same in accordance with law. Therefore, the authorities relied upon does not render any assistance to the respondent No. 1 in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 20. Therefore, the authorities relied upon does not render any assistance to the respondent No. 1 in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 20. The Apex Court in the case of Smt. Violet Isaac & Anr., (supra) in the given facts of that case held that notwithstanding the will alleged to have been executed by the deceased employee in favour of his brother, the relevant rules does not entitle payment of family pension to brothers who are major and the petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee was held to be entitled to receive the family pension. 21. In the case of G.L Bhatia (supra), the Apex Court in the given facts of that case held that irrespective of the husband of the late Government servant not having been entered as a nominee in the official records, the husband nevertheless was entitled to receive family pension in terms of the statutory rules i.e. Rule 54 of the Pension Rules. This would, therefore, also indicate that in the presence of statutory rules, nomination made by the Government employee cannot be the deciding factor for granting family pension. 22. Thus, upon over all consideration of the matter in its entirety, I find merit in the appeal and accordingly, the impugned Judgment & Order dated 16.12.2015 passed by the Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Aizawl in RFA No. 28/2015 is hereby set aside and the Judgment & Order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the Trial Court in Heirship Certificate No. 71/2009 is upheld but in the light of the observations and findings arrived at by this Court, as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. 23. The appeal accordingly stands disposed of. Registry to send back the LCR immediately.