JUDGMENT Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. The captioned second appeal is by the plaintiff questioning the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession is dismissed by both the Courts by recording a finding that plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa @ Muniyappa. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The plaintiff has filed the present suit by contending that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa who is also known as Muniyappa. She has further claimed that in their wedlock, she is blessed with two sons and one daughter namely, Venkateshappa, Muniraju and one daughter by name Rathnamma. Plaintiff has further pleaded that defendant is the wife of second son Venkataramanappa. Plaintiff claims that her husband Narayanappa and Venkataramanappa are full brothers and they constitute undivided joint Hindu family. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that after marriage plaintiff started residing with her husband at Jakkasandra village and plaintiff's father-in-law was the Kartha of the family and after his demise, her mother-in-law as the head of the family was managing the ancestral properties. Plaintiff has alleged that after demise of Narayannappa, she along with her children have inherited the ancestral properties and therefore, she is entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant has sold some of the ancestral properties inspite of objection by the plaintiff and therefore, the present suit is filed seeking half share in the properties. 4. The defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. 5. The defendant at para 3 of the written statement stoutly denied the plaintiff's status as wife of Narayanappa. Defendant on the contrary claimed that the first son of Venkatamma namely Narayanappa died without marriage and therefore, disputed the status of plaintiff as wife of Narayanappa. 6. Plaintiff and defendant to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. 7. Plaintiff to substantiate her marriage with Narayanappa examined one witness as P.W.2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P10. 8. 6. Plaintiff and defendant to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence. 7. Plaintiff to substantiate her marriage with Narayanappa examined one witness as P.W.2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P10. 8. The defendant by way of rebuttal evidence has placed on record the voter's list and other documents to substantiate that plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa, but on the contrary, she is the legally wedded wife of one Muniyappa. 9. The trial Court having examined the pleadings of the parties and having assessed the oral and documentary evidence answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. While answering the same in the negative, the trial Court has held that plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa. While taking cognizance of the rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant vide Ex.D1, which is the voters list of Narasapura Panchayath and Belur village, the trial Court found that plaintiff's husband name is indicated as Muniyappa and the voters' list of children of plaintiff indicate that they are shown to be the children of one Muniyappa and not Narayanappa. The plaintiff's contention that her husband Narayanappa was also known as Muniyappa was not acceded by the trial Court. While examining Ex.D1, trial Court was of the view that if at all the plaintiff's husband was also known as Narayanappa the same would have been reflected in the Voter's list produced by the defendant by way of rebuttal evidence. During trial, plaintiff admitted that she does not have any other documents to support her claim that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa. The trial Court referring to the rebuttal evidence also found that if plaintiff was really married to Narayanappa, who was the resident of Jakkasandra village, then the voters' list for last sixty years which pertains to Narasapura Panchayath and Belur Village would virtually contradict the plaintiff 's claim that she was legally married to Narayanappa and she was residing at Jakkasandra Village. The trial Court while examining the evidence of P.W.2, however, was of the view that his evidence is a mere hearsay evidence as he has deposed that his parents used to tell him that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa. The trial Court while examining the evidence of P.W.2, however, was of the view that his evidence is a mere hearsay evidence as he has deposed that his parents used to tell him that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa. Trial Court also found that it is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that his parents are alive and therefore, the trial Court was not inclined to accept the evidence of P.W.2 to substantiate the plaintiff's status as the legally wedded wife of One Narayanappa. Consequently, the suit is dismissed. 10. Plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court preferred an appeal before the appellate Court. Before the appellate Court, plaintiff has produced additional evidence. By way of additional evidence, the plaintiff tried to rely on a registered sale deed dated 9.2.1976 and has also placed on record, the marriage invitation card dated 28.4.1958. The appellate Court while examining the additional evidence, out rightly discarded the marriage invitation. The appellate Court while examining the invitation card was of the view that the printing press named in the invitation was not at all in existence at the time of alleged marriage date. While referring to the sale deed, the appellate Court was of the view that plaintiff's husband name is not shown as Narayanappa @ Muniyappa and therefore, was not inclined to accede to the claim of the plaintiff that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa. On reassessing the entire evidence on record, the appellate Court was also of the view that plaintiff has failed to establish that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa and further, she has also failed to establish that her husband Muniyappa was also called as Narayanappa. Appellate Court while discarding the evidence of P.W.2 has come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to substantiate that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa and therefore, she is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. These concurrent findings are under challenge by the original plaintiff-Kempamma. It is borne out from the records that during the pendency of the second appeal original plaintiff died and her children have come on record to prosecute the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant. Perused the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 12. It is borne out from the records that during the pendency of the second appeal original plaintiff died and her children have come on record to prosecute the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendant. Perused the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 12. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa and that she led the marital life with said Narayanappa at the Jakkasandra village for almost 60 years. To substantiate her claim, plaintiff has placed reliance on Ex.P1 which is the genealogical tree issued by the Village Accountant of Nindahalli Revenue Circle, Malur Taluk. The plaintiff's claim as that she is legally wedded wife of Narayanappa hinges on a family tree issued by a revenue authority, which is marked at Ex.P1. Plaintiff has also produced the transfer certificate of her son Venkateshappa and an endorsement dated 20.9.2011 issued by the Tahsildar vide Ex.P10 in regard to non-availability of voter's list pertaining to 1970-80. The defendant however to counter the plaintiff's status as the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa has relied on the voters list which is marked at Ex.D1. Both the Courts referring to rebuttal evidence, have come to the conclusion that plaintiff has failed to prove the factum of marriage with Narayanappa. Referring to Ex.D1, both the Courts have come to the conclusion that plaintiff in fact is the wife of one Muniyappa and the children are born in the wedlock of plaintiff with one Muniyappa and not Narayanappa. If plaintiff led the marital life at Jakkasandra village, the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant by placing reliance on voter's list contradicts and falsifies the narrative of plaintiff that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa and she led marital life for almost 60 years at Jakkasandra village. 13. If marital status is seriously disputed, then the person asserting legal status that she is the wife of a particular person has to establish the factum of marriage by placing on record the marriage certificate, photographs evidencing the marriage. In the present case on hand, to substantiate that there is a valid marriage, plaintiff has not placed on record any documentary evidence. Even there is no foundation in the plaint indicating the manner in which plaintiff's alleged marriage with Narayanappa took place. In the present case on hand, to substantiate that there is a valid marriage, plaintiff has not placed on record any documentary evidence. Even there is no foundation in the plaint indicating the manner in which plaintiff's alleged marriage with Narayanappa took place. There can be a marriage acceptable in law according to the customs which do not insist on performance of such rites. If the parties had lived together for decades, the public records including the Voter's list describing them as husband and wife and competent witnesses of the village of the wife as well as the husband ought to have been examined to support the factum of marriage. P.W.2 is not a competent witness in the present case on hand, who was hardly found to be aged 30. 14. The evidence of P.W.2 also does not carry any evidentiary value. His evidence is found to be in the nature of a hearsay evidence. Therefore, plaintiff ought to have examined some credible witnesses who had participated in the marriage or her relatives to substantiate the factum of marriage of plaintiff with Narayanappa. The plaintiff having suffered a decree at the hands of the trial Court has straight away come up with additional evidence. She has placed reliance on the invitation card which is out rightly discarded by the appellate Court. The appellate Court has taken cognizance of the fact that plaintiff during trial has admitted that she does not possess the invitation card to substantiate the factum of marriage. Since, plaintiff is asserting that her marriage was performed way back in 1958, there may be a case where witnesses to the marriage may not be available. There may also be a case where documentary evidence to prove marriage may not be available. Therefore, in such a situation, it was incumbent on the part of the plaintiff to examine some elderly persons either from Jakkasandra village or her relatives or rather her siblings to substantiate her marriage with Narayanappa. 15. To prove a marriage solemnized way back in time, the plaintiff faces the onus of substantiating the marriage. This burden necessitates a meticulous approach. The plaintiff must lay a solid foundation in the plaint by presenting a detailed and coherent account of the circumstances surrounding the marriage. This entails providing relevant specifics such as date, venue, and key participants. 15. To prove a marriage solemnized way back in time, the plaintiff faces the onus of substantiating the marriage. This burden necessitates a meticulous approach. The plaintiff must lay a solid foundation in the plaint by presenting a detailed and coherent account of the circumstances surrounding the marriage. This entails providing relevant specifics such as date, venue, and key participants. Additionally, any available supporting documentation, such as photographs or affidavits from witnesses, should be included to fortify the claim. It is crucial for the plaintiff to navigate the temporal gap and potential evidentiary challenges inherent in older marriages. The emphasis lies on assembling a compelling narrative that withstands legal scrutiny and establishes the veracity of the marriage in question. 16. Invitation cards typically contain essential details such as the names of the marrying parties, date, time, and venue of the ceremony. These details play a crucial role in corroborating the occurrence of the marriage. The plaintiff can use invitation cards to demonstrate not only the intention to marry but also the public acknowledgment of the union. In the absence of invitation cards, the plaintiff can explore alternative avenues, such as testimonies from individuals who attended the marriage. The plaintiff should approach this process by identifying and contacting potential witnesses who were present at the marriage. The goal is to elicit detailed and accurate information that corroborates the plaintiff's claims. The examination may cover aspects such as the atmosphere at the ceremony, rituals performed, and any distinctive features that can reinforce the veracity of the marriage. 17. Additionally, the plaintiff should emphasize the importance of the witnesses' credibility. This can be achieved by highlighting their relationship to the parties involved, their familiarity with the cultural or familial practices of that time, and their ability to recall specific details despite the passage of years. In the absence of concrete documentary evidence, the testimony of these witnesses becomes paramount in establishing the historical occurrence of the marriage. The plaintiff's legal strategy should focus on presenting a coherent narrative through witness testimonies, effectively addressing any potential skepticism or challenges to the authenticity of the marriage solemnized in 1958. 18. There is absolutely no foundation in the plaint. A bald statement is made at Para 5 of the plaint. At Para 5, plaintiff claims that she is married to the first son of Venkatamma namely Narayanappa. Para 5 of the plaint reads as under: "5. 18. There is absolutely no foundation in the plaint. A bald statement is made at Para 5 of the plaint. At Para 5, plaintiff claims that she is married to the first son of Venkatamma namely Narayanappa. Para 5 of the plaint reads as under: "5. The plaintiff submits that the plaintiff was married to Venkatamma first son one Narayanappa, after the marriage the plaintiff, her husband, mother in law, father in law, her husband brothers and sisters were lived peacefully at Jakkasandra, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar Dist. The plaintiff father in-law was Kartha of the family, after death of his father inlaw, the mother in-law was the head of the family. All the properties were stands in the name of the Plaintiff mother in-law Venkatamma. The plaintiff husband Narayanapa died leaving behind the plaintiff and his children's as his legal heirs." Though defendant has seriously disputed plaintiff's status, plaintiff has not made any efforts to file a rejoinder and narrate the specific details of date, time and venue of the ceremony. P.W.2- witness was hardly aged 30 years as on the date of recording of his evidence. Therefore, P.W.2 is not a competent witness to depose the marriage of plaintiff with Narayanappa in 1958. 19. On the contrary, the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant not only falsifies the claim of the plaintiff that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa but the said documentary evidence in fact establishes the factum of marriage of plaintiff with one Muniyappa of Belur village. Therefore, the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant is rightly taken cognizance by both the Courts while denying the reliefs to the plaintiff. It is also quite interesting to note that plaintiff claiming to be widow of Narayanappa has instituted the present suit seeking share in the properties while children have not opted to join the plaintiff and seek their legitimate shares as coparceners in the ancestral properties. Therefore, heavy burden lies on the plaintiff to substantiate and prove her marriage. If the rebuttal evidence is looked into, it clearly gives an indication that plaintiff is married to one Muniyappa and not to Narayanappa. The additional evidence that was placed on record before the appellate Court has also not come to the aid of the plaintiff to substantiate her legal status. If the rebuttal evidence is looked into, it clearly gives an indication that plaintiff is married to one Muniyappa and not to Narayanappa. The additional evidence that was placed on record before the appellate Court has also not come to the aid of the plaintiff to substantiate her legal status. There is absolutely no evidence indicating that plaintiff was married to Narayanappa and she lived 60 years at the marital home. The rebuttal evidence on the contrary portrays contrary to what is claimed by the plaintiff in the plaint. On examining the records, this Court would find that plaintiff has not even produced slender evidence which would give an indication that she was legally married to Narayanappa of Jakkasandra village. The defence set up by the defendant appears to be probable and therefore, both the Courts have held that plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa. If there is absolutely no material to indicate that plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa, I do not find any infirmities in the findings recorded by both the Courts while dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts that plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa does not suffer from serious infirmities and the findings recorded therein on the legal status of the plaintiff is for want of legal evidence. If plaintiff has not led any foundation in the plaint and has failed to produce any documentary evidence or evidence in the form of examining some elderly persons from the village to substantiate her marriage, this Court is not inclined to reassess and revisit the material on record, which is not permissible under Section 100 of CPC. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The second appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.