JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral). Plaintiffs-Appellants have preferred this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2016, passed by Additional District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No.75 of 2013, titled Neelama Devi and Others Vs. Narotami Devi (deceased) through her legal heir Swarna Devi, whereby, judgment and decree dated 18.09.2012, passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Hamirpur, District Hamirpur, H.P., in Civil Suit No.85 of 2002, titled Neelama Devi and Others Vs. Narotami Devi deceased through her legal heirs Swarna Devi, rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs that defendant had no right, title or interest over the suit land comprised in Khata No.217, Khatoni No.279, Khasra Nos.967, 981 measuring 1 Kanal 13 Marlas as per jamanbandi for the year 1997-1998, situated in Tika Sujanpur, Tappa Bhaleth, Tehsil Sujanpur, District Hamirpur, has been affirmed. 2. For convenience, parties to the lis are being referred as per their status in the civil suit, i.e. plaintiffs and defendants. 3. Vide order dated 20.12.2016, present appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of Law:- “1. Whether impugned judgment and decree in appeal passed by Ld. First Appellate Court affirming the judgment and decree of Ld. Trial Cout is the result of misreading and misinterpretation of the evidence on record and law applicable in the matter and resultant findings recorded and conclusions drawn are illegal, incorrect and perverse?” 4. Learned counsel for plaintiffs has submitted that defendant-Narotami Devi was married to one Amar Nath, who was real Uncle (Chacha) of plaintiffs, but immediately after marriage defendant eloped with one Baradu Ram alias Durga Dass and gave birth to children from the loins of Baradu Ram. Amar Nath expired on 25.09.1946 and his property had been inherited by plaintiffs including the whole suit land which is being cultivated by the plaintiffs as owners. 5. It has been submitted on behalf of plaintiffs that defendant had remarried with Durga Dass before enactment of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1956’) and at the time of death of Amar Nath, the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act 1856’) was in force, wherein in Section 2 whereof, it has been provided that rights of widows in deceased husband’s property seized to exist on her remarriage. 6. 6. Section 2 of Hindu Widow’s Remarriage Act, 1856 reads as under:- “(2) Rights of Widow in deceased husband’s property to cease on her remarriage.- All rights and interests which any widow may have in her deceased husband’s property by way of maintenance, or by inheritance to her husband or to his lineal successors, or by virtue of any will or testamentary disposition conferring upon her; without express permision to remarry, only a limited interest in such property, with no power of alienation the same, shall upon her re-marriage cease and determine as if she had then died, and the next heirs of her deceased husband, or other persons entitled to the property on her death, shall thereupon succeed to the same”. 7. It has been contended for plaintiffs that before enactment of Act 1956, Hindu Widow had limited right in the property of her husband which ceased to exist on remarriage, and as defendant had remarried with Durga Dass after death of Amar Nath, but before 1956, she was not entitled for benefit of Section 14 of Act 1956, which provides that any property possessed by female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of Act 1956, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as limited owner. 8. It has been argued by learned counsel for plaintiffs that as defendant had lost right to continue as owner of the property of Amar Nath, for her remarriage prior to 1956, and, therefore, there was no question of becoming her absolute owner after commencement of Act 1956. 9. According to learned counsel for plaintiffs, had Narotami Devi remarried after 1956, she would have right to continue with the said property as a full owner for enactment of Act 1956. 10. It has been contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs that in the Parivar Register (Exhibit P-3), it has been entered that Rajinder Sharma son of Narotami Devi and Durga Dass was born in the year 1962, but, according to him, this entry cannot be taken as substantial proof of date of birth of Rajinder Sharma as the family register is not a per se admissible document to establish and prove the date of birth particularly in absence of any certificate issued on the basis of Births and Deaths Register maintained by the concerned Registrar. Therefore, it has been contended that the oral statement that Narotami Devi had married with Durga Dass before 1956 has to be taken into consideration but the Courts below have committed mistake by interpreting and relying the oral as well as documentary evidence. 11. To substantiate the claim on behalf of the plaintiffs, learned counsel has referred the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kizhakke Vattakandiyil Madhavan (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Thiyyurkunnath Meethal Janaki and Others reported in 2024 STPL 4480 SC; judgment dated 24.05.2010 passed by Division Bench of this High Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Ram Kumar 2010 SCC Onlilne HP 1322; and judgment dated 28.02.2017 passed by this Court in RSA No.463 of 2006 titled as Dhani Ram Vs. B.B.M.B. and Another. 12. Learned counsel for the defendants has controverted the argument of learned counsel for the plaintiffs by referring pleadings, statements of the witnesses as well as documents relied upon by the parties with submission that the case put forth on behalf of plaintiffs now, was never the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court. 13. It is evident from the plaint as well as statements of plaintiffs’ witnesses that it was never case of the plaintiffs that Narotami Devi inherited Amar Nath’s property as his widow and, thereafter, she remarried before 1956 with Baradu Ram and thus the limited right acquired by her in the property had come to an end, in view of provisions of Act 1856. Rather, it was the case of the plaintiffs that soon after marriage with Amar Nath defendant eloped with Baradu Ram and began to live unchaste life during life time of her husband and after death of Amar Nath, plaintiffs are successors-in-interest of Amar Nath and are owners in possession of the suit land which was never objected by anybody. 14. Rather, it was the case of the plaintiffs that soon after marriage with Amar Nath defendant eloped with Baradu Ram and began to live unchaste life during life time of her husband and after death of Amar Nath, plaintiffs are successors-in-interest of Amar Nath and are owners in possession of the suit land which was never objected by anybody. 14. It was the case of the plaintiffs that parties are Brahmin by caste and agriculturist, who are governed by agricultural customs, and according to such customs, Hindu wife leaving her matrimonial home and leading unchaste life forfiet her right to the property of her husband, and the suit land was inherited by Amar Nath as an ancestral land, and for leaving the house during life time of her husband Amar Nath, defendant was not having any righty upon the share of Amar Nath, who never came to the village, never resided there and never cultivated the land. Whereas, the land was and is being cultivated by the plaintiffs alongwith other co-sharers except defendant-Narotami Devi and, thus, they have become owners by way of adverse possession. 15. Before the Trial Court, issues with respect to the claim of the plaintiffs were framed, regarding ancestral status of suit land; agricultural customs, if any, and their effect in the present case; acquring title of the suit land by the plaintiffs by way of adverse possession, etc., but neither there were pleadings nor, and rightly so, any issue was framed with respect to acquiring limited rights by the defendant and termination thereof on remarriage with Baradu Ram before enactment of Act 1956. 16. The plea with respect to Act 1856 and Act 1956 was raised before the First Appellate Court for the first time which was negated by the Additional District Judge by referring the pleadings and evidence on record. 17. So far as, date of birth of son Rajinder Sharma is concerned as referred in Ex.P-3, copy of parivar register of Narotami Devi, that has not been relied upon by the Courts below for deciding the lis because there was no plea taken before the Trial Court nor any such issue was framed regarding remarriage of defendant- Narotami Devi after death of her husband Amar Nath with Baradu Ram prior to 1956 and, thus, this plea is of no help to the plaintiffs. 18. 18. The plea taken before the First Appellate Court as well as before this Court does not exist in the pleadings and the evidence of the plaintiffs and for that reason only neither such issue was framed by the Trial Court nor on this count any evidence was led by either party. Thus, the contention raised by the appellant in this appeal is not supported by the pleadings and/or evidence on record. 19. On perusal of record and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any misreading, misinterpretation of the evidence on record as well as law applicable in the matter resulting into perversity in the impugned judgment. 20. No other issue and point have been urged or raised. Substantial question of law is answered in aforesaid terms. 21. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit alongwith pending application(s), if any.