JUDGMENT : Virender Singh, J. The above titled Regular Second Appeals, are being decided by a common judgment, as, both these appeals have been filed, by the appellant(s), against the judgment and decree dated 14th June, 2019, passed by the Court of learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’), in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2017, titled as Shahri Devi versus Banki Devi & Others and Cross-Objections/Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2018, titled as Banki Devi Versus Shahri Devi & Others. 2. On 14th June, 2019, the learned First Appellate Court has passed the following judgment: “30. In view of my aforesaid discussions, the appeal filed by Shahri Devi is hereby allowed and the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, HP is hereby modified to the effect that appellant Shahri Devi is hereby declared legally wedded wife of late Sh. Kehar Singh and she is entitled to receive family pension of deceased Kehar Singh and it is further declared that the defendant No.2 had rightly released family pension in favour of appellant Shahri Devi. However, for the aforesaid reasons, cross-objection bearing No.01 of 2018 filed by plaintiff Banki Devi is dismissed as her suit for declaration and injunction is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own cost. Decree sheet be drawn.” 3. The above appeals, as well as, cross-objections, were filed by the parties, against the judgment dated 31st July, 2017, passed by the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Civil Suit No.145/2010, titled as Banki Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Others. 4. Vide judgment and decree, dated 31st July, 2017, the learned trial Court has dismissed the suit of plaintiff Banki Devi, for Declaration and Injunction. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the present lis are, hereinafter, referred to, in the same manner, as were, referred to, by the learned trial Court. 6. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeals, before this Court, may be summed up, as under: 6.1. Plaintiff Banki Devi, has filed a suit for declaration and injunction, initially, against defendants No.1 and 2. 6. Brief facts, leading to filing of the present appeals, before this Court, may be summed up, as under: 6.1. Plaintiff Banki Devi, has filed a suit for declaration and injunction, initially, against defendants No.1 and 2. On 22nd May, 2015, by filing an application, under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, defendant No. 3 Shahri Devi was impleaded as defendant No.3 and pleadings were accordingly amended. 6.2. Defendant No.1 is the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereas, defendant No. 2 is the Divisional Forest Officer, Banjar, District Kullu and defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, is the person, who is receiving, pensionary benefits of Kehar Singh, Deputy Ranger (Retired). The plaintiff has sought the declaration to the effect that she is legally wedded wife (now widow) of Kehar Singh, retired Deputy Ranger, resident of Village Rohlo Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, and, as such, she is entitled to receive the family pension, alongwith all other monetary benefits and arrears of pension. 6.3. The suit has been filed on the ground that Kehar Singh, son of Dola Singh, resident of Village Rohlo Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, who has been described as husband of the plaintiff, was posted, as Deputy Ranger, in Seraj Forest Division Banjar and he was superannuated from service w.e.f. 30th April, 1991. 6.4. The plaintiff has asserted that she is legally wedded wife of Kehar Singh. Both, she and Kehar Singh, are agriculturist and governed by the custom, in the matter of marriage, divorce, adoption etc., as incorporated in Rewaj-e-Aam. Their marriage was also solemnized, according to the custom, governing the parties, by performance of Ganesh Pooja and serving meals to the marriage party, in the month of Falgun, 1970 and right after the marriage, the plaintiff lived with Kehar Singh, as his legally wedded wife and out of the said wedlock, three sons namely Tek Singh, Dalip Singh and Megh Singh were born. 6.5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that unfortunately, her husband Kehar Singh expired on 12.1.2010, in village Rohlo. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff has asserted that she is entitled to receive family pension, along with all monetary benefits, permissible under the law. 6.6. 6.5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that unfortunately, her husband Kehar Singh expired on 12.1.2010, in village Rohlo. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff has asserted that she is entitled to receive family pension, along with all monetary benefits, permissible under the law. 6.6. Thereafter, the plaintiff has approached the office of defendant No.2 for processing payment under law and Service Rules, being widow of deceased Kehar Singh, but, her request has outrightly been rejected, on the ground that she is not legally wedded wife of said Kehar Singh and as per the record of the department, as disclosed, Durga Devi, is the first wife of Kehar Singh, who, as per the record, expired in the year 1974 and as such, no valid marriage could have been solemnized by Kehar Singh with plaintiff, in the year 1970. 6.7. According to the plaintiff, the said stand of defendant No.2 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and without authority, as, she, as well as, Kehar Singh, were governed by the custom, in the matter of marriage, divorce, adoption and inheritance etc., and according to the custom, governing the parties, divorce by mutual consent is permissible and legal. 6.8. The plaintiff has elaborated her stand, by asserting the fact that Kehar Singh and Durga Devi had dissolved their marriage, by obtaining divorce, on mutual consent and thereafter, Durga Devi was married with one Jai Chand, resident of Village Khandragi Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu and out of this wedlock, she had given birth to a son namely, Tedhi Singh, in the year 1967. 6.9. Thereafter, the plaintiff and Kehar Singh, had solemnized marriage in the year 1970. She has given the specific date of her marriage, as the month of Falgun 1970. When, the legal request has not acceded to, by defendants No.1 and 2, then the plaintiff had issued notice under Section 80 CPC on 2nd March, 2010. 6.10. Notice was served, but, no action has been taken by defendants No.1 and 2. 7. She has given the specific date of her marriage, as the month of Falgun 1970. When, the legal request has not acceded to, by defendants No.1 and 2, then the plaintiff had issued notice under Section 80 CPC on 2nd March, 2010. 6.10. Notice was served, but, no action has been taken by defendants No.1 and 2. 7. On the basis of the above facts, plaintiff had sought the following reliefs:- (I) It may be declared that the plaintiff is the legally wedded wife (and now widow) of Kehar Singh retired Dputy Ranger, resident of village Rohlo Phati Bhiar Kthi Chehni Tehsil Banjar District Kullu and as such on the death of Kehar Singh husband of the plaintiff is entitled to receive family pension along with all other monetary benefits and arrears of pension. (II) That the defendants may be ordered to release the family pension along with arrears thereof and other monetary benefits along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum in favour of plaintiff by way of issuance of mandatory injunction. (III) Cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff. (IV) All other relief which this court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and necessary to be granted to the plaintiff in the interest of justice may also be granted and justice be done. 8. When put to notice, the suit has been contested and resisted by the defendants. 9. Defendants No.1 and 2 have filed their written statement, by taking the preliminary objections, that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable; she has no locus standi to file the present suit, as, she is not the legally wedded wife of late Kehar Singh, Deputy Ranger; and she is estopped to file the present suit on account of her act and conduct. 10. On merits, the factual position, with regard to the posting of Kehar Singh, Deputy Ranger, has been admitted, but, it has been asserted that it was not known to defendants No.1 and 2 that the plaintiff is wife of Kehar Singh. It is their further case that Kehar Singh, Deputy Ranger, has also solemnized marriage with one Shahri Devi (defendant No. 3), who has been declared nominee by Kehar Singh. On the basis of the above fact, Shahri Devi (defendant No. 3), is receiving the family pension. 11. It is their further case that Kehar Singh, Deputy Ranger, has also solemnized marriage with one Shahri Devi (defendant No. 3), who has been declared nominee by Kehar Singh. On the basis of the above fact, Shahri Devi (defendant No. 3), is receiving the family pension. 11. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied. As such, a prayer has been made to dismiss the suit. 12. Defendant No.3, had filed her separate written statement, by taking preliminary objections, that the suit of the plaintiff is neither maintainable nor competent in the present form; plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file the suit against defendant No.3, as defendant No.3 is the legally wedded wife of Kehar Singh, after the death of Durga Devi; plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts; the suit is time barred; and the suit is based upon false and frivolous allegations. 13. On merits, the factual position, with regard to place of abode of Kehar Singh, as well as, he was serving/retired, as Deputy Ranger, has not been disputed. However, it has been disputed that he was husband of the plaintiff. 14. The stand of the plaintiff, with regard to the custom, has also been disputed, by pleading that no marriage has been solemnized between plaintiff-Banki Devi and Kehar Singh, as alleged. Elaborating her stand, it is her case that Kehar Singh was married with Durga Devi and she remained his wife till her death. Durga Devi died on 31.5.1984. Thereafter, defendant No. 3, had solemnized marriage with Kehar Singh. 15. On the basis of the marriage, according to defendant No. 3, Kehar Singh had allegedly named her, as nominee, in respect of his PPO and other retiral/pensionary benefits. After his retirement, according to defendant No. 3- Shahri Devi, she, being the legally wedded wife, is rightly receiving the family pension. Rest of the contents of the plaint have been denied. 16. Plaintiff filed the replication, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of the written statement, by virtue of which, the suit has been contested by the defendants. 17. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed, by the learned trial Court, vide orders dated 10.05.2011 and 3.11.2015:- 1. 16. Plaintiff filed the replication, denying the preliminary objections, as well as, the contents of the written statement, by virtue of which, the suit has been contested by the defendants. 17. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed, by the learned trial Court, vide orders dated 10.05.2011 and 3.11.2015:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration to the effect that she is legally wedded wife of Kehar Singh retired Deputy Ranger resident of village Rohlu Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni Tehsil Banjar District Kullu on the death of said Kehar Singh and she is entitled to receive family pension alongwith all other monetary benefits and arrears of pension? OPP 1-A. Whether Shahri Devi is not a legally wedded wife of deceased Kehar Singh? OPP 1-B. Whether family pension being paid to defendant No.3 Shahri Devi has been wrongly granted in her favour, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether this suit is not maintainable? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit as she is not legally wedded wife of late Kehar Singh Deputy Ranger? OPD 5. Relief. 18. Thereafter, the parties to the lis were directed to adduce evidence. 19. Consequently, the parties to the lis have adduced the evidence. 20. After the closure of evidence, upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned trial Court, has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, however, while deciding issue No.1-A and 1-B, has held, as under: “29. Thus, in view of my above observations/discussions, it can safely be concluded that Kehar Singh had contracted second marriage with plaintiff Banki Devi in the year 1970 and thereafter he contracted the marriage with defendant No.3 Shahri Devi during subsistence of his marriage with Durga Devi and therefore. his marriage with plaintiff Banki Devi as well as defendant No.3 Shahri Devi were null and void and as such, neither the plaintiff nor the defendant No.3 are entitled to family pension as wife of Kehar Singh. Consequently, issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff, issues No.1-A, 1-B are decided in favour of the plaintiff and Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the defendants and are answered as such.” 21. Consequently, issue No.1 is decided against the plaintiff, issues No.1-A, 1-B are decided in favour of the plaintiff and Issue No.4 is decided in favour of the defendants and are answered as such.” 21. Aggrieved from the said findings, defendant No. 3- Shahri Devi, has preferred Civil Appeal No.17 of 2017, titled as Shahri Devi Vs. Banki Devi & Others. She has assailed the findings of the learned trial Court, in the judgment and decree, that marriage of Shahri Devi with Kehar Singh was null and void and she is not entitled to get the pension and other retiral benefits. 22. The findings of learned trial Court have also been assailed, by defendant No.3, on the ground that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the facts, pleaded in the written statement, by defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi that Kehar Singh was married to Durga Devi and Durga Devi died on 31.5.1984. After, the death of Durga Devi, Kehar Singh got married to appellant Shahri Devi and this fact/pleading has been duly proved and corroborated by her, while appearing, as DW-4. 23. According to defendant No. 3, the learned trial Court has wrongly held that the marriage of defendant No.3 with Kehar Singh was null and void. In this regard, defendant No.3 has also highlighted the documentary evidence Ex. DW-3/B, Ex. DW-3/C and Ex. DW-3/D, which, according to her, has not been taken into consideration, by the learned trial Court. 24. According to the appellant-plaintiff, the learned trial Court has wrongly declared her marriage with Kehar Singh, as null and void. 25. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal, by setting aside the findings, recorded by the learned trial Court, while deciding issues No.1-A and 1-B. 26. In the said appeal, plaintiff Banki Devi has filed the cross-objections No.1 of 2018, in which, findings of learned trial Court, on issues No.1 to 3, have been assailed, being against the facts and law. 27. According to plaintiff-Banki Devi, while deciding issues No.1 to 3, learned trial Court has not considered the facts, as pleaded, as well as, the evidence, so adduced. This fact has also been highlighted that Durga Devi, was married with Jai Chand of Village Khandragi, after divorce with Kehar Singh and has given birth to a son namely, Tedhi Singh, from the loins of Jai Chand. This fact has also been highlighted that Durga Devi, was married with Jai Chand of Village Khandragi, after divorce with Kehar Singh and has given birth to a son namely, Tedhi Singh, from the loins of Jai Chand. In this regard, she has relied upon the documentary evidence Ex. PW-5/B, Ex. PA and Ex. PC. 28. On the basis of the above facts, plaintiff Banki Devi has prayed that the findings on issues No.1 to 3, may kindly be set aside and suit may kindly be ordered to be decreed, as prayed for. 29. The learned First Appellate Court has decided Civil Appeal, as well as, the cross objections, vide judgment and decree, dated 14th June, 2019. While deciding the Civil Appeal and the cross objections, the learned First Appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree, dated 31st July, 2017, passed by the learned trial Court, as referred to above. 30. Aggrieved from the said judgment and decree, plaintiff-Banki Devi has filed RSAs No. 432 and 433 of 2019. 31. By way of RSA No. 432 of 2019, plaintiff-Banki Devi has assailed the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, on 14th June, 2019, by virtue of which, the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court has been modified and defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi has been declared as legally wedded wife of Kehar Singh. 32. Those findings have been assailed, on the ground, that the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2017, is against the law and facts and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 33. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that the learned First Appellate Court, as well as, the learned trial Court have completely ignored to consider the oral, as well as, the documentary evidence on record, which establishes that Kehar Singh and Durga Devi had divorced each other, by mutual consent, much prior to the marriage of plaintiff-Banki Devi with Kehar Singh in Falgun 1970 34. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the oral testimony of plaintiff, as well as, Tedhi Singh has not been considered properly. The said Tedhi Singh is the son of Durga Devi, who was the first wife of Kehar Singh, with whom, Kehar Singh had mutually divorced, much prior to the marriage of plaintiff-Banki Devi with Kehar Singh. 35. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the oral testimony of plaintiff, as well as, Tedhi Singh has not been considered properly. The said Tedhi Singh is the son of Durga Devi, who was the first wife of Kehar Singh, with whom, Kehar Singh had mutually divorced, much prior to the marriage of plaintiff-Banki Devi with Kehar Singh. 35. The plaintiff-appellant has further assailed the judgment and decree, on the ground, that Tedhi Singh has categorically stated that his mother, after divorce with Kehar Singh, had solemnized second marriage with Jai Chand, resident of Village Khandragi and from that wedlock, Tedhi Singh was born on 7th March, 1967. The said fact, according to the plaintiff-appellant, has not been considered by the learned Courts below. 36. It is the case of the plaintiff-appellant that in the document, Ex. P-3, which is the extract of Pariwar Register of Gram Panchayat, Durga Devi has been recorded as wife of Jai Chand and Tedhi Singh has been recorded as their son. Even, in the admission and withdrawal record of the School, said Tedhi Singh, according to the plaintiff-appellant, has been shown to be born on 7th March, 1967 and recorded as son of Jai Chand and Durga Devi. 37. As per the stand of the plaintiff-appellant, the document, Ex. PA, which is the extract of Pariwar Register, has not properly been considered by the learned Courts below. Similarly, the evidence of PW-Dhian Singh has also not been considered, who is family member of Kehar Singh and well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the entire case. Said Dhian Singh, according to the plaintiff- appellant, has also deposed about the divorce between Kehar Singh and Durga Devi, much prior to the marriage of plaintiff-appellant-Banki Devi with Kehar Singh. 38. The findings have further been assailed on the ground that admission of the employer of Kehar Singh, qua the facts that in the service record of Kehar Singh, plaintiff- appellant has been recorded as his wife, to have married with him in the year 1970 and that Kehar Singh, during his life time, had applied for the change of name of nominee from Shahri Devi to Banki Devi; have not been considered. 39. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the learned Courts below have wrongly held that the marriage between Kehar Singh and defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, was valid. 40. 39. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the learned Courts below have wrongly held that the marriage between Kehar Singh and defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, was valid. 40. On the basis of the above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the appeal, as prayed for. 41. Plaintiff-Banki Devi has also filed RSA No. 433 of 2019, by virtue of which, the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court on 14th June, 2019, vide which, the cross-objections filed by her have been dismissed. 42. By way of the said appeal, the judgment and decree, passed by the learned First Appellate Court, in Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2017 and Cross Objections/Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2018, dated 14th June, 2019, as well as, the judgment and decree, passed by the learned trial Court in Civil Suit No. 145 of 2010, dated 31st July, 2017, have been stated to be against the law and facts, on the file. 43. The findings of both the Courts below have been assailed on the ground that the oral and documentary evidence on record, has not been considered properly. The evidence of Tedhi Singh is also stated to have not been considered properly. 44. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the document, Ex. P-3, has not been considered properly, as, this document clearly establishes that in the record of Gram Panchayat, Durga Devi has been recorded as wife of Jai Chand, resident of Village Khandrali and in the admission and withdrawal record of the school, where Tedhi Singh had studied, his date of birth has been shown as 7th March, 1967 and he has been recorded as their son. 45. In nut shell, the findings of both the Courts below, have been assailed by the plaintiff-appellant, almost on the same grounds, upon which, RSA No. 432 of 2019, has been filed. 46. RSA No. 432 of 2019 has been admitted, on the following substantial questions of law, vide order, dated 26th September, 2019: “1. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court i.e. Ld. District Judge, Kullu, has misread and misappreciated the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and whether on account of such misreading and misappreciation the feedings are vitiated and deserve to be set aside? 2. Whether the Ld. First Appellate Court i.e. Ld. District Judge, Kullu, has misread and misappreciated the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and whether on account of such misreading and misappreciation the feedings are vitiated and deserve to be set aside? 2. Whether both the Courts below ignored from taking into consideration the custom governing the party contained in Rivaz-i-am applicable to the party which as per answer to question No. 17 provides that parties can dissolve their marriage by mutual consent?” 47. RSA No. 433 of 2019 has been admitted, vide order, dated 25th September, 2019, on the following substantial questions of law,: “1.Whether the leaned First Appellate Court as well as learned trial court has misread and misappreciated the pleadings of the parties as also the evidence on record, both oral and documentary and whether on account of such misreading and misappreication, the findings are vitiated and deserve to be set aside? 2. Whether both the courts below ignored from taking into consideration the custom governing the party contained in Rivaz-e-am applicable to the party which as per answer to Question No. 17 provides that parties can dissolve their marriage by mutual consent?” 48. In order to decide the controversy involved in both the appeals, it would be just and appropriate for this Court, to discuss the oral, as well as, documentary evidence, adduced by the parties, before the learned trial Court. 49. In this case, before framing the additional issues on 3rd November, 2015, the plaintiff has examined six witnesses, however, after framing the additional issues, the plaintiff has examined Shiv Ram, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chehni, Banjar as PW-1. He has proved the Death Register maintained in Gram Panchayat Chehni, as Ex. PW-5/A. This witness could not tell as to who was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat Chehni, in the year 1983-84. In his crossexamination by defendant No. 3, this witness has denied that Durga was expired on 31st May, 1974. 50. Plaintiff-Banki Devi herself appeared in the witness box, as PW-2 and filed her affidavit in evidence, which is based upon the stand, as taken by her, in her plaint. In the opening lines of her cross-examination, she has feigned her ignorance about the fact as to who was the lady, figuring in the photograph, Mark A. She has categorically denied that the said lady is defendant No.3. In the opening lines of her cross-examination, she has feigned her ignorance about the fact as to who was the lady, figuring in the photograph, Mark A. She has categorically denied that the said lady is defendant No.3. According to plaintiff-Banki Devi, 14-15 families are residing in Village Rohlo. Witness-Tedhi Singh, Dhian Singh and Dhian Singh are not her relatives, nor, she used to meet them. According to her deposition, Dhian Singh Numberdar is resident of Village Diyar, which is about 1 km from Village Rohlo. Similarly, other Dhian Singh is also residing at a distance of 1 km from the house of this witness. 51. As per this witness, Kehar Singh had not solemnized marriage with any other lady. Voluntarily stated that she is wife of Kehar Singh for the last 45 years. However, according to her, she could not spell out the year and samwat year of her marriage with Kehar Singh, but, the same was solemnized about 45 years ago. They are governed by custom. They used to follow Hindu rituals. 52. As per the further deposition of this witness, the marriage of this witness was solemnized with Ganesh Pooja. The rituals were performed by Lakshmi Pandit, who is stated to be still alive. The Ganesh Pooja was done in the parental house of the plaintiff. 45 other persons came with Kehar Singh, however, they had not come in a marriage party. She could not disclose about the names of persons, who had come with Kehar Singh. When, she was married with Kehar Singh, her age was about 20 years and Kehar Singh was about 45 years old. Factum of marriage was not documented. At the time of marriage, Kehar Singh was posted at Banjar and was deputed in outer Seraj, Kullu and Seraj Beat. The parents of this witness were residing in Village Diun. Kehar Singh remained posted as Forest Guard in Village Diun for 3-4 years. She could not depose about the customary divorce. She has admitted that Durga was the first wife of Kehar Singh and according to her, Durga was divorced about four years prior to the marriage. Writing was also made, but, Kehar Singh was also not having those papers. She could not disclose about the month when Durga and Kehar Singh were divorced. The elder son of this witness is about 44 years old and another one is 40 years old. Writing was also made, but, Kehar Singh was also not having those papers. She could not disclose about the month when Durga and Kehar Singh were divorced. The elder son of this witness is about 44 years old and another one is 40 years old. From the marriage of Kehar Singh with Durga, no child was born. She has denied that during the life time of Durga, Kehar Singh had not given divorce to her. Durga expired about 30-32 years ago from the date, when this witness has made deposition in the Court. 53. In the cross-examination by the learned ADA, this witness has admitted that at the time of her marriage with Kehar Singh, Durga was alive, however, she has denied that after the death of Durga, Kehar Singh had solemnized marriage with Shahri Devi. In her further crossexamination, this witness has admitted that Durga Devi was expired on 31st May, 1974. Rest, she has denied all the suggestions, which were put to her by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants. 54. PW-3, Tejinder Thakur, Superintendent, Government Senior Secondary School Banjar, District Kullu, has proved the extract of the admission and withdrawal register of the school, as Ex. PW-3/A, pertaining to one Tedhi Singh, s/o Jai Chand, r/o Khanragi, who was admitted in class 6th on 16th April, 1979 and on 23rd April, 1980, he left the school. This witness has feigned his ignorance as to whether Tedhi Singh is legitimate or illegitimate child of Jai Chand. 55. PW-4, Tedhi Singh, has filed his affidavit, in his examination in chief. According to him, plaintiff-Banki Devi, wife of Kehar Singh, resident of Village Rohlo Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni, is known to him and she is having three sons, namely Tek Singh, Dalip Singh and Megh Singh. Kehar Singh, husband of plaintiff was serving as Deputy Ranger in Forest Department and superannuated about 24-25 years ago, however, he has expired about five years ago, from the date, when he has filed the affidavit. He has further deposed that his mother, Durga Devi, was first wife of Kehar Singh, however, their marriage was dissolved, by way of divorce. Thereafter, Durga Devi, mother of this witness, solemnized marriage with his father, Jai Chand. He has given his date of birth as 7th March, 1967. His mother had got this witness admitted in Government Senior Secondary School, Banjar, in 1979 in 6th standard. Thereafter, Durga Devi, mother of this witness, solemnized marriage with his father, Jai Chand. He has given his date of birth as 7th March, 1967. His mother had got this witness admitted in Government Senior Secondary School, Banjar, in 1979 in 6th standard. When, this witness was aged about 11-12 years, his mother had gone to Chehni, where, she had died about 32-33 years ago. According to him, Shahri Devi is not the wife of Kehar Singh, nor, she had resided with Kehar Singh, as such. 56. In his cross-examination, by learned counsel appearing for defendant No. 3, this witness has deposed that, in their area, known as Seraj, marriage ceremonies are being performed by Ganesh Pooja. The said Ganesh Pooja is being done in the home of the girl, whereas, marriage is being dissolved, in Tehsil Complex, Banjar, by documenting the said fact. The said document used to be given to the parents of the girl. Durga Devi was his mother, who was married with Kehar Singh, but, voluntarily stated, that after obtaining divorce, his mother had solemnized second marriage. The marriage was dissolved about 55 years ago, however, he has feigned his ignorance, about the fact, at which place, the marriage was dissolved, nor, he ever inquired this fact from his mother. This witness was born in the year 1967, after 3-4 years from the divorce of Durga Devi. The factum of divorce was entered in the record of Gram Panchayat Chehni. He has denied that he is not the legitimate son of Jai Chand. Kehar Singh has solemnized his first marriage with mother of this witness and thereafter, with Banki Devi. 57. In the cross-examination by learned ADA, this witness has deposed that his mother disclosed to him, that her marriage with Kehar Singh was dissolved. When, this fact was disclosed, at that time, this witness was about 8-9 years old. His mother expired in the year 1984. This witness has admitted that they are following Hindu rituals in relation to marriages and divorce. This witness has feigned his ignorance about the fact that Kehar Singh has solemnized marriage with Shahri Devi, after the death of mother of this witness. 58. PW-5, Dhian Singh, has deposed that Banki Devi was married to Kehar Singh, in the year 1970. After their marriage, Banki Devi lived with Kehar Singh, as his wife in Village Rohlo. This witness has feigned his ignorance about the fact that Kehar Singh has solemnized marriage with Shahri Devi, after the death of mother of this witness. 58. PW-5, Dhian Singh, has deposed that Banki Devi was married to Kehar Singh, in the year 1970. After their marriage, Banki Devi lived with Kehar Singh, as his wife in Village Rohlo. They have been blessed with three sons, namely, Tek Singh, Dalip Singh and Megh Singh. As per this witness, the marriage of Kehar Singh with Durga Devi was dissolved, by way of divorce, and, thereafter, she had married one Jai Chand, r/o Village Khandragi. She had given birth to a son, namely Tedhi Singh. The marriage of Kehar Singh with Banki Devi was solemnized about 3-4 years, after the birth of Tedhi Singh. According to him, except his marriage with Banki Devi, Kehar Singh has not solemnized any other marriage. Shahri Devi was not the wife of Kehar Singh, nor, she resided with him ever as his wife. Durga Devi was elder in age to this witness. He could not tell in which year, Kehar Singh solemnized marriage with Durga Devi, nor, he could tell as to how many marriage were solemnized by Kehar Singh. He has also feigned his ignorance about the fact that till the time Durga Devi was alive, she has not obtained any divorce from Kehar Singh. 59. In this case, prior to framing additional issues, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1, Dhian Singh as PW-2, Dhian Singh as PW-3, Tedhi Singh as PW-4, Yudhvir Singh as PW-5 and Ramesh Chand as PW-6. 60. Plaintiff-Banki Devi appeared as PW-1 on 28th December, 2011. She had filed her affidavit in examination-in-chief. In her cross-examination by the learned ADA, this witness has admitted that at the time of her marriage with Kehar Singh, his first wife Durga Devi was alive, but, voluntarily stated that she had gone to other place. Rest, she has denied all the suggestions put to her. 61. PW-2, Dhian Singh, son of Tule Ram, has filed his affidavit, Ex. PW-2/A, in his evidence, in support of the plaintiff. This witness has also admitted that when Banki Devi got married with Kehar Singh, his first wife was alive, but, denied the suggestion that Durga Devi had not obtained any divorce from Kehar Singh. 62. 61. PW-2, Dhian Singh, son of Tule Ram, has filed his affidavit, Ex. PW-2/A, in his evidence, in support of the plaintiff. This witness has also admitted that when Banki Devi got married with Kehar Singh, his first wife was alive, but, denied the suggestion that Durga Devi had not obtained any divorce from Kehar Singh. 62. PW-3, Dhian Singh, son of Salig Ram, also supported the case of the plaintiff. Like other witnesses, this witness has deposed that when, Banki Devi solemnized marriage with Kehar Singh, his first wife was alive, but, voluntarily stated that Durga had solemnized marriage, after obtaining divorce. 63. PW-4, Tedhi Singh, has also filed his affidavit, in examination-in-chief, as per the case of the plaintiff. 64. PW-5, Yudhvir Singh, has produced the admission and withdrawal register, Ex. PW-5/A, pertaining to Tedhi Singh. 65. PW-6, Ramesh Chand, Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni, has produced the document, Ex. PW-6/A, which is pertaining to the death register of the village. According to him, at serial No. 9, there is entry regarding the death of Durga Devi, w/o Jai Chand, on 31st May, 1984. According to this witness, the said entry was got entered by her son, Tedhi Singh, s/o Jai Chand. Tedhi Singh was born in the year 1967. 66. Defendants No. 1 and 2 have examined P.L. Gupta, Divisional Forest Officer, as DW-1, who has deposed that Kehar Singh had solemnized first marriage with Durga, who died in the year 1974. Thereafter, Kehar Singh had solemnized second marriage with Shahri Devi. He has feigned ignorance about the fact that Durga Devi solemnized marriage with Jai Chand and had given birth to Tedhi Singh, in the year 1967. As per further deposition of this witness, Kehar Singh had moved application for correction of nominee, which was rejected by AG Office. 67. DW-2, Rajeev Sharma has also deposed the same facts, in his examination-in-chief. In the cross-examination, this witness has feigned his ignorance about the fact that Kehar Singh has solemnized marriage with Banki Devi in the year 1970. 68. DW-3, Bhimi Ram, has also deposed on the same lines. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that in the record brought by him, there is no document pertaining to the fact that Shahri Devi is the wife of Kehar Singh. As per him, no certificate of Panchayat is annexed, nor, any date has been entered there. 68. DW-3, Bhimi Ram, has also deposed on the same lines. In cross-examination, this witness has deposed that in the record brought by him, there is no document pertaining to the fact that Shahri Devi is the wife of Kehar Singh. As per him, no certificate of Panchayat is annexed, nor, any date has been entered there. Durga, the first wife of Kehar Singh, has expired in the year 1974, as per the record. According to him, as per the record, the factum of marriage of plaintiff-Banki Devi, with Kehar Singh, in the year 1970 has been record. 69. Defendant No. 3, Shahri Devi, has filed her affidavit, in her examination-in-chief, as DW-4/A, which is based upon the stand, as taken by her, in the written statement. 70. In her cross-examination, this witness has deposed that she was married with Kehar Singh about 32-33 years ago. She did not know Banki Devi. According to her further deposition, her husband was earlier married with Durga Devi. The said marriage of this witness with Kehar Singh was solemnized by Pandit. This witness is receiving the pension. 71. In her cross-examination by the learned counsel the plaintiff, defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi has feigned her ignorance about the age of Durga Devi at the time of her death. Durga Devi was resident of Village Kando, but, she could not tell the father’s name of Durga Devi. She has voluntarily stated that her husband has disclosed to her that his first marriage was solemnized with Durga of Kando. She has feigned her ignorance that Kehar Singh is having three children. Even, she has feigned ignorance with regard to the age of Kehar Singh. 72. As per this witness, Kehar Singh was having 60-70 bigha land and three-four residential houses. Usufruct of the land of Kehar Singh is being enjoyed by this witness, as, she is residing in his house. Durga Devi has not given birth to any son. As per her further deposition, 7-8 families used to reside in Village Rohlo. Dhian Singh, son of Salig Ram is also resident of Village Rohlo, who happens to be her brother-in-law (devar). As per this witness, Dhian Singh is Numberdar of Phati Bihar, who is not the son of Tule Ram. This witness is having Ration Card in Village Rohlo and similarly, her name has been entered in the voter list of Village Rohlo. As per this witness, Dhian Singh is Numberdar of Phati Bihar, who is not the son of Tule Ram. This witness is having Ration Card in Village Rohlo and similarly, her name has been entered in the voter list of Village Rohlo. As per this witness, ceremonies of the marriage were performed in Village Seri, in the month of Baisakh, but, she could not disclose about the parvishtas, however, as per her version, marriage was solemnized 32-33 years ago. The last rites of Kehar Singh were performed by this witness, alongwith her brother. Marriage of this witness with Kehar Singh was got entered in Gram Panchayat Chehni, however, ration card of this witness is in Village Rohlo. She has again stated that she could produce the record of Panchayat, pertaining to her marriage. Durga is stated to have expired about 31-32 years ago from the date, when, this witness appeared in the witness box. This witness had produced the death certificate of Durga Devi before DFO, but, denied that the same was forged one. She has admitted that the marriages in their family, are being performed by way of Ganesh Pooja; writings are not being done, however, divorce is being obtained from the Court. As per her further deposition, Durga had expired in Village Rohlo. Durga was not married with Jai Chand. 73. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, Ex. PW-5/A is the extract of the birth and death register, the extract of admission and withdrawal of the school has also been exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A, Ex. P-1 is the copy of notice, Ex. P-2 and P-3 are postal receipts, Ex. P-4 is the acknowledgment, Ex. P-5 is extract of Pariwar Register, Ex. PW-5/B is the school leaving certificate. Ex. PA is the extract of Pariwar registrar, Ex. PB is the certificate of Panchayat, Ex. PC is the copy of voter list, Ex. DW-3/B is the sanction letter, Ex. DW-3/C are the pension papers and Ex. DW-3/D are the nomination papers. 74. First of all, coming to the documentary evidence, Ex. PW-5/A is the copy of birth and death register. At serial No. 9, name of Durga Devi, w/o Jai Chand has been mentioned and her date of death has been shown to be 31st May, 1984. 75. As per admission and withdrawal register of the school, which has also been exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A is the copy of birth and death register. At serial No. 9, name of Durga Devi, w/o Jai Chand has been mentioned and her date of death has been shown to be 31st May, 1984. 75. As per admission and withdrawal register of the school, which has also been exhibited as Ex. PW-5/A, in entry No. 3426, one Tedhi Singh has been shown to be son of Jai Chand. His date of birth has been mentioned as 7th March, 1967. 76. Ex. P-1 is the notice, under Section 80 CPC. 77. Ex. P-3 is the copy of Pariwar Register, pertaining to Village Khandragi, Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., in which, name of Durga Devi, has been recorded as wife of Jai Chand and that of Tedhi Singh has been recorded as son of Jai Chand. 78. Ex. PW-5/B is the school leaving certificate of Tedhi Singh, wherein names of his parents have been entered as Jai Chand and Durga Devi and his date of birth has been mentioned on 7th March, 1967. 79. Ex. DW-3/B is the pension payment order. In column No. 8, the following facts have been mentioned: “From the date following the date of death of Shri Kehar Singh his wife Smt. Sharu Devi will be entitled to Rs. 895/- upto 13.4.98 and thereafter @ Rs. 450/- under family pension scheme, 1964. The family pension will however cease to be payable on her death or remarriage whichever is earlier. The RIP will be admissible on the family pension when payable beyond CPI 608 point.” 80. Ex. DW-3/C is the authorization letter. In this document, in column No. 26, name of Shahri Devi has been shown as wife and names of Tek Singh, Dalip Singh and Megh Singh as sons of Kehar Singh. 81. In the nomination papers, Ex. DW-3/D, name of Shahri Devi has been mentioned. 82. Ex. PX is the death certificate of Durga Devi, wife of Jai Chand and her date of death has been reflected as 31st May, 1984. 83. Ex. PA is the copy of Pariwar Register of Village Rohlo, Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni. In this document, plaintiff-Banki Devi has been shown to be the wife of Kehar Singh. Apart from Banki Devi, names of Tek Singh, Dalip Singh and Megh Singh have been mentioned as sons of Kehar Singh. 84. Ex. 83. Ex. PA is the copy of Pariwar Register of Village Rohlo, Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni. In this document, plaintiff-Banki Devi has been shown to be the wife of Kehar Singh. Apart from Banki Devi, names of Tek Singh, Dalip Singh and Megh Singh have been mentioned as sons of Kehar Singh. 84. Ex. PB is the certificate issued by Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni, according to which, name of Shahri Devi has not been entered in the family register of Kehar Singh, s/o Dola Singh, nor, the factum of marriage has been registered. 85. Ex. PC is the copy of the voter list pertaining to Village Tandi, Tehsil Banjar. In the said document, at serial No. 212, name of Shahri Devi has been reflected, wherein, her husband’s name has been mentioned as Damodar. 86. As per the stand taken by the parties, in the present case, the following facts are not in dispute: 87. Kehar Singh was serving as Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department. Said Kehar Singh superannuated from service on 30th April, 1991 and expired on 12th January, 2010. 88. It is also not disputed, in this case, that Kehar Singh was earlier married with one Durga Devi. 89. Plaintiff-Banki Devi, in the present case, has sought the relief of declaration that she is legally wedded wife of Kehar Singh. Even, according to plaintiff-Banki Devi, Kehar Singh was married to Durga Devi and according to the stand taken by plaintiff-Banki Devi, Kehar Singh had obtained customary divorce from Durga Devi and thereafter, solemnized marriage with plaintiff-Banki Devi, in the month of Falgun, 1970. 90. Plaintiff-Banki Devi has asserted the fact that her marriage with Kehar Singh was solemnized by way of customary rights, i.e. Ganesh Pooja, and thereafter, according to her, she lived with Kehar Singh, as his legally wedded wife and they were blessed with three sons, namely, Tek Singh, Dalip Singh and Megh Singh. 91. It is her specific case, in the pleadings, that the marriage of Kehar Singh and Durga Devi was dissolved by way of divorce, by mutual consent and thereafter, Durga Devi had solemnized mariage with one Jai Chand, resident of Village Khandragi Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni, Tehsil Banjar and out of this wedlock, one son, namely Tedhi Singh, was born, in the year 1967. 92. 92. Since, these facts have been asserted by plaintiff- Banki Devi, to seek declaration, as such, the onus was upon her to prove these facts. It is also the specific case of the plaintiff that after the solemnization of the marriage with Kehar Singh, in the year 1970, and, after his death, she is entitled for all the monetary benefits, including the family pension. The marriage of plaintiff-Banki Devi with Kehar Singh is stated to have taken place in the month of Falgun, 1970 and Kehar Singh expired in the year 2010. Meaning thereby, as per the stand of plaintiff-Banki Devi, she lived with Kehar Singh as his wife for about 40 years. 93. In order to prove the fact that Durga Devi was the first wife of Kehar Singh and they have obtained the customary divorce, plaintiff-Banki Devi has relied upon the oral, as well as, the documentary evidence, on the file. 94. Plaintiff-Banki Devi, in her affidavit, has asserted the factual position, as contained in the plaint. In her crossexamination, she has asserted that her marriage was solemnized about 45 years ago with Kehar Singh. This deposition has been made in the year 2015. According to her, the Pandit, who has performed the rituals, in the marriage, was Lachi Pandit, who is still alive. The said Pandit has not been examined. The factum of marriage was not documented. 95. The non-production of the person, who has performed the rituals in the marriage, is not fatal for the case of the plaintiff. While holding so, it is apt to rely upon the decision of a three Judges’ Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case, titled as Badri Prasad versus Dy. Director of Consolidation ad others, reported in AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1557, which reads as under: “For around 50 years, a man and a woman, as the facts in this case unfold, lived as husband and wife. An adventurist challenge to the factum of marriage between the two, by the petitioner in this special leave petition, has been negatived by the High Court. A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. A strong presumption arises in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin. Law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. In this view, the contention of Shri Garg, for the petitioner, that long after the alleged marriage, evidence has not been produced to sustain its ceremonial process by examining the priest or other witnesses, deserves no consideration. If man and woman who live as husband and wife in society are compelled to prove, half a century later, by eye-witness evidence that they were validly married, few will succeed. The contention deserves to be negatived and we do so without hesitation. The special leave petitions are dismissed.” 96. In this case, apart from the deposition of plaintiff- Banki Devi, while appearing as PW-1, there is deposition in the shape of PW-4 Tedhi Singh, who, according to the description given by him, is the son of Jai Chand, resident of Village Khandragi Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni. He has also deposed that in the area of Seraj, marriages are being performed by way of Ganesh Pooja, being held in the parental house of the girl. This witness, in his examination-in-chief, has stated that his mother, Durga Devi, was the first wife of Kehar Singh, but, their marriage was dissolved by way of divorce and thereafter, Durga Devi solemnized marriage with Jai Chand. According to him, he was born on 7th March, 1967. He was, thereafter, admitted in Government Senior Secondary School, Banjar in the year 1979 in 6th standard. He studied up to 5th standard in Government Primary School, Bihar. This witness has deposed that Durga Devi had obtained divorce from Kehar Singh about 55 years ago. 97. He has deposed these facts, as according to him, his mother had apprised him about these facts. There is no occasion for this Court to raise any suspicion qua the deposition of Tedhi Singh about the fact that his mother had disclosed to him that she had obtained divorce from Kehar Singh. 97. He has deposed these facts, as according to him, his mother had apprised him about these facts. There is no occasion for this Court to raise any suspicion qua the deposition of Tedhi Singh about the fact that his mother had disclosed to him that she had obtained divorce from Kehar Singh. Although, he has stated that at that time, he was 8-9 years old, but, considering the fact that the children in the rural areas, attain maturity at a very young age, in comparison to the children, who are residing in cities, his statement cannot be doubted. 98. Even otherwise, the factum of death of Durga Devi, wife of Jai Chand, was got recorded by Tedhi Singh, in the relevant register, at serial No.9. Her date of death has been mentioned as 31st May, 1984. In the admission and withdrawal register of the school, in which, Tedhi Singh, had studied, his date of birth has been mentioned as 7th March, 1967. If the son of Jai Chand and Durga Devi was born on 7th March, 1967, then, this fact also supports the stand of plaintiff-Banki Devi, qua the fact that Kehar Singh had dissolved his marriage with Durga Devi, by way of customary divorce, prior to Falgun, 1970, when plaintiff-Banki Devi had solemnized marriage with Kehar Singh. Tedhi Singh, being the son of Jai Chand and Durga Devi, can be said to be the appropriate person, to depose about the fact that his mother Durga Devi had solemnized marriage with his father Jai Chand. 99. In the document, Ex. P-3, which is the copy of Pariwar Register, pertaining to one Sangat Ram, of Village Khandragi, Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni, Tehsil Banjar, District Kullu, H.P., the name of Durga Devi has been recorded as wife of Jai Chand and Tedhi Singh has been shown as son of Jai Chand. 100. It is not the case of the defendants that the documents, heavily relied upon by PW-4, Tedhi Singh, do not pertain to Durga Devi, who was earlier married to Kehar Singh and obtained customary divorce from him. 101. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case, titled as Challamma versus Tilaga and others, reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 299, has held that the long cohabitation and acceptance of the society of a man and woman as husband and wife goes a long way in establishing a valid marriage. 101. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a case, titled as Challamma versus Tilaga and others, reported in (2009) 9 Supreme Court Cases 299, has held that the long cohabitation and acceptance of the society of a man and woman as husband and wife goes a long way in establishing a valid marriage. The relevant paras-10 to 12, of the judgment, are reproduced, as under: “10. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that in determining the question of valid marriage, the conduct of the deceased in a case of this nature would be of some relevance. If on the aforementioned premise, the learned trial Judge has arrived at a finding that the deceased Subramanya had married the first respondent, no exception thereto can be taken. A long cohabitation and acceptance of the society of a man and woman as husband and wife goes a long way in establishing a valid marriage. 11. In Tulsa v. Durghatiya [ (2008) 4 SCC 520 ] this Court held: (SCC p. 525, paras 11-14) “11. At this juncture reference may be made to Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short ‘the Evidence Act’). The provision refers to common course of natural events, human conduct and private business. The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have occurred. Reading the provisions of Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act together, it is clear that the act of marriage can be presumed from the common course of natural events and the conduct of parties as they are borne out by the facts of a particular case. 12. A number of judicial pronouncements have been made on this aspect of the matter. The Privy Council, on two occasions, considered the scope of the presumption that could be drawn as to the relationship of marriage between two persons living together. In first of them i.e. Andrahennedige Dinohamy v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy [ AIR 1927 PC 185 ] Their Lordships of the Privy Council laid down the general proposition that: (AIR p. 187) ‘… where a man and woman are proved to have lived together as man and wife, the law will presume, unless the contrary be clearly proved, that they were living together in consequence of a valid marriage and not in a state of concubinage.’ 13. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan [(1928-29) 56 IA 201 : AIR 1929 PC 135 ] Their Lordships of the Privy Council once again laid down that: (IA p. 207) ‘The law presumes in favour of marriage and against concubinage, when a man and a woman have cohabited continuously for a number of years.’ 14. It was held that such a presumption could be drawn under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.” 12. It is also well settled that a presumption of a valid marriage although is a rebuttable one, it is for the other party to establish the same. (See Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Moli v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni [ (1996) 7 SCC 681 ] and Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy [ (2005) 2 SCC 244 ].) Such a presumption can be validly raised having regard to Section 50 of the Evidence Act. (See Tulsa [ (2008) 4 SCC 520 ].) A heavy burden, thus, lies on the person who seeks to prove that no marriage has taken place.” 102. As per the documentary evidence, adduced by plaintiff-Banki Devi, before the learned trial Court, an inference can be drawn, that she and Kehar Singh were continuously living together, as husband and wife. In such situation, it would be presumed that plaintiff-Banki Devi was legally wedded wife of Kehar Singh. Although, the said presumption is rebuttable, but, for rebutting the said presumption, heavy burden lies upon defendant No. 3- Shahri Devi, to establish and prove that no marriage took place, so that plaintiff-Banki Devi can be deprived of the relationship of legal origin. 103. The documents, which have been produced by plaintiff-Banki Devi, in the present case, clearly belie the claim of defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, qua her marriage with Kehar Singh. 104. Defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, in the written statement, while replying para-4 of the plaint, has simply stated that after the death of Durga Devi on 31st May, 1984, Kehar Singh solemnized marriage with her, as per law. She has not even given the month, in which, she had allegedly solemnized marriage with Kehar Singh, whereas, plaintiff- Banki Devi has specifically asserted that she was married with Kehar Singh, in the month of Falgun, 1970. 105. The factum of death of Durga Devi was duly entered in the revenue record, in which, said Durga Devi has been shown as wife of Jai Chand. 105. The factum of death of Durga Devi was duly entered in the revenue record, in which, said Durga Devi has been shown as wife of Jai Chand. The situation would have been otherwise, had the name of Kehar Singh been entered as husband of Durga Devi, in the revenue record, which is being maintained, as per the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act. 106. The documentary evidence, produced on the file, is contrary to the stand taken by defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi. Defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, in her examination-inchief, while appearing as DW-4, has not uttered even a single word qua the date, month and year of her marriage with Kehar Singh. No doubt, she has deposed, in the crossexamination, that her marriage was solemnized in the month of Baisakh, about 32-33 years ago, but, she could not disclose about the year of her marriage. Moreover, when, she is totally silent about the date of her marriage with Kehar Singh, in her pleadings, then, a stray sentence, deposed by her, in the cross-examination, is not liable to be taken into consideration. 107. Another fact, which has rightly been highlighted by the learned counsel, appearing for appellant-plaintiff- Banki Devi, in this case, is that, according to defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, she is having her ration card in Village Rohlo and her name has been entered in the voter list of Village Rohlo, whereas, in the document, Ex. PA, which is the copy of pariwar register of Kehar Singh, son of Dola Singh, resident of Village Rohlo, Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni, name of plaintiff-Banki Devi has been recorded as wife of Kehar Singh. This document does not contain the name of defendant No.3-Shahri Devi as wife of Kehar Singh. 108. The entries in the pariwar register are made by the Government official, in discharge of their duties, and the law carries a presumption of accuracy and fidelity in their official acts. It is for the defendants to prove contrary to the effect that the entries, in these documents, are not as per the actual/factual position. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. 109. Not only this, as per the document, Ex. It is for the defendants to prove contrary to the effect that the entries, in these documents, are not as per the actual/factual position. The presumption of truth attached to the revenue record can be rebutted only on the basis of evidence of impeccable integrity and reliability. 109. Not only this, as per the document, Ex. PB, which is the certificate, issued by Gram Panchayat Kothi Chehni, the name of defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi has not been entered in the family register of Kehar Singh, son of Dola Singh, nor, the factum of their marriage has been registered. 110. The document, Ex. PC, which is the copy of the voter list, pertaining to Village Tandi, Tehsil Banjar, at serial No. 212, name of defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi has been recorded as wife of one Damodar. 111. When, a specific stand has been taken by defendant No. 3, qua the fact that she is having the ration card in Village Rohlo and her name has been entered in the voter list of Village Rohlo, then, onus was upon her to produce the documents in support of the said stand. The situation would have been otherwise, had defendant No. 3- Shahri Devi been deposed that she is not having any ration card or her name has not been entered in the voter list, pertaining to Village Rohlo, but, once, she has admitted these facts, non-production of documents, in support of said stand, gives an occasion for this Court to draw an adverse inference against her, by holding that she was not having any ration card in Village Rohlo or her name has not entered in the voter list of Village Rohlo. 112. As per the certificate, Ex. PB, the stand of defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, qua the fact that her marriage, with Kehar Singh, was duly entered in the record of Gram Panchayat Chehni, is also falsified. 113. Interestingly, the persons, whose names have been entered in the pariwar register, as well as, the documents, relied upon by the defendants, i.e. Dalip Singh, Tek Singh and Megh Singh, as sons of Kehar Singh, have been recorded, alongwith defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, as his wife. These documents have been produced by the defendants and admittedly, there is no dispute, inter se, the authenticity of those documents. As such, the documents cannot be read in piecemeal. 114. These documents have been produced by the defendants and admittedly, there is no dispute, inter se, the authenticity of those documents. As such, the documents cannot be read in piecemeal. 114. Therefore, the stand of defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi does not seem to be natural, as, the persons, who have been shown as sons of Kehar Singh, in the pensionary documents of Kehar Singh, have not even been acknowledged to the sons of Kehar Singh, by defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi, who claims herself to be the wife of Kehar Singh, as she has deposed that she does not know them. 115. The stand of plaintiff-Banki Devi has also been supported by PW-5 Dhian Singh, son of Salig Ram, resident of Village Rohlo Phati Bihar Kothi Chehni. Merely, this witness has stated that he does not know that Durga Devi had expired as wife of Kehar Singh. Whatsoever this witness has deposed, in his examination-in-chief, has been reasserted by him, in his cross-examination by learned ADA. The evidence of PW-5 Dhian Singh is natural one, as he is resident of the same village, where, plaintiff-Banki Devi is residing as widow of Kehar Singh. 116. Apart from the oral evidence, with regard to the custom, prevailing in the area of Seraj, the learned counsel appearing for appellant-plaintiff-Banki Devi has relied upon the decision of a Single Bench of this Court, in a case, titled as Smt. Phukdi and others versus Paras Ram, reported in 1977 S.L.C. 258. The relevant para-4 of the said judgment, is reproduced, as under: “In this appeal, it has been urged by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned District Judge has erred in holding that the first appellant was married to Paras Ram. It is contended that custom required the performance of Ganesh Puja, and no such Puja was ever performed when the first appellant is alleged to have married Paras Ram. The question is whether the performance of Ganesh Puja was necessary for completing the marriage alleged between Paras Ram and the first appellant. Question no. 16 of the Riwaj-i-am mentioned above, and the answer thereto, are set out: “Question 16 : Ceremonies of marriage-with what ceremonies is a marriage celebrated and what ceremonies make the marriage binding? Is it customary to execute a writing to that? Question no. 16 of the Riwaj-i-am mentioned above, and the answer thereto, are set out: “Question 16 : Ceremonies of marriage-with what ceremonies is a marriage celebrated and what ceremonies make the marriage binding? Is it customary to execute a writing to that? Answer (1) : All the tribes reply that marriage in the whole of the Sub-Division excluding Waziri Lahaul and Spiti are performed by giving meals to the marriage party. In very few caset amongst high class Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs, vedic rites are preformed, but generally it is only completed with Ganesh Puja. Amongst poorer people it is only performed by the execution of deed. Agreement deeds are usually executed in Tehsil Kullu whereas in Sub-Tehsil Seraj, Rupi and Lahaul, this custom exists, but rarely.” Admittedly, Paras Ram and the first appellant belong to the Sub-Tehsil Seraj in Kullu. It is also admitted that they are Harijans by caste. On a proper construction of the custom recited above, it is apparent that in the case of high class Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs the marriage ceremony is completed with Ganesh Puja, in a few cases vedic rites are performed. All other communities, that is those who are not Brahmins, Khatris and Rajputs, perform their marriages by merely giving meals to the marriage party, and where they are very poor a mere deed is executed. There is ample material on the record to support the finding of the learned District Judge that meals were served to the marriage party when the marriage of Paras Ram was performed with the first appellant. The marriage, having been solemnised according to custom was valid and I accordingly affirm the finding of the learned District Judge to that effect.” 117. So far as the plea of customary divorce, as taken by palintiff-Banki Devi, with regard to the dissolution of the marriage of Durga Devi with Kehar Singh, is concerned, the stand of plaintiff-Banki Devi, in this regard, is duly supported by the evidence of PW-Tedhi Singh, as well as PWDhian Singh. 118. As per Question No. 17, contained in the Tribal Custom, the extract of which is available on the record of the learned trial Court, at page No. 203, customary divorce is permissible. It is apt to reproduce relevant extract of Question No. 17, as set out in the Tribal Custom, as under: “Question 17. 118. As per Question No. 17, contained in the Tribal Custom, the extract of which is available on the record of the learned trial Court, at page No. 203, customary divorce is permissible. It is apt to reproduce relevant extract of Question No. 17, as set out in the Tribal Custom, as under: “Question 17. Permission of divorce – Is divorce permitted by custom? Answer. Custom permits divorce, but by mutual consent.” 119. It would also be profitable to reproduce the relevant portion of ‘Marriage and morals’, as contained in Chapter III ‘People’, of the Himachal Pradesh District Gazetteers, pertaining to District Kullu, as under: “The marriage ceremony is a matter of great rejoicing. It takes place on the auspicious day settled by Pandit after consulting Panchang and the birth chart of nakshatras of the bride and the bridegroom. The bridegroom usually goes with some relatives and friends to the bride’s house to escort her to his house. The numerical strength of the marriage party called Baratis is generally settled. The bride’s parents have a feast ready for them. If the distance is too great for the party to return with the bride the same day, they spend the night at the bride’s parents’ house. Before they start on their return journey, the girl receives a present of articles of jewelry from the groom. Worship of Ganesh by the couple is sometimes performed at the bride’s house before the departure of the bridal party. The purohit of the girl’s family perform the ceremony. On arrival at the bridegroom’s house, worship of Ganesh is repeated, but the officiating Brahmin this time is the purohit of the groom’s family. The couple in a procession is taken to the temple of the village deity where they perform the puja ceremony. The couple after the ceremony returns to the house. Another ceremony performed at both houses is called Lai Lui; the youngman’s plaid is tied in a knot with the bride’s dupatta and the couple takes round of the altar. A vessel of water is consecrated and the balu or nose ring is solemnly purified. The young couple and the guests, receive the tika mark on their foreheads generally from the hands of the bride. Then follows the marriage feast for which a goat is slayed in sacrificial fashion by a specially selected guest.” (self emphasis supplied) 120. A vessel of water is consecrated and the balu or nose ring is solemnly purified. The young couple and the guests, receive the tika mark on their foreheads generally from the hands of the bride. Then follows the marriage feast for which a goat is slayed in sacrificial fashion by a specially selected guest.” (self emphasis supplied) 120. In view of the discussions made above, plaintiff- Banki Devi has successfully proved, in this case, that she had solemnized marriage with Kehar Singh in the month of Falgun, 1970 and prior to her marriage with Kehar Singh, he had obtained customary divorce from Durga Devi. In addition to this, defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi has miserably failed to prove her marriage with Kehar Singh. 121. In view of the above, the substantial questions of law, as framed in both the appeals, are decided in favour of appellant. 122. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, as well as, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Appellate Court, by virtue of which, the learned Appellate Court has declared defendant No. 3-Shahri Devi as legally wedded wife of Kehar Singh, are reversed and set aside. Accordingly, appellant-plaintiff- Banki Devi is declared as legally wedded wife (now widow) of Kehar Singh, retired Deputy Ranger and as such, she is entitled for the family pension, alongwith other monetary benefits. However, she is entitled for the family pension, on account of death of Kehar Singh, being his widow. 123. Both the appeals are allowed, in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of accordingly. 124. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.