IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. R.S.A. No. 699 of 2008 Date of Decision: 19.1.2009 Sube Singh. ....... Appellant through Shri Krishan Singh, Advocate. Versus Smt.Batheri Devi and others. ....... Respondents through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This appeal is directed against judgments and decrees dated 14.2.2006 and 31.7.2007 passed respectively by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') and Additional District Judge,Karnal (referred to hereinafter as `the First Appellate Court') whereby the suit as well as the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant have been dismissed. The appellant had sought a decree for declaration to the effect that the marriage of defendant-respondent no.1 with him after the death of Zile Singh is a void marriage as per the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act and did not bind his marital status with Smt. Sudesh and that the reports of defendant-respondent nos. 3 to 7 made on 1.7.1998 and 3.8.1998 on the R.S.A.No.699 of 2008 -2- ... basis of letter dated 10.8.1998 issued by defendant-respondent no.3, i.e., Superintendent of Police, Karnal, to the competent authority of Border Security Force, Karanpur and the certificate showing the marriage of respondent no.1 with him are null & void. The case of the appellant was that he had joined the Border Security Force on 18.8.1994 and his work & conduct were satisfactory. He further averred that he remained unmarried since the time of joining in Border Security Force and that deceased-Zile Singh was his real elder brother, who died on 1.8.1987 leaving behind respondent no.1 as his widow and children who were born out of the wedlock. Thereafter, respondent no.1 along with her children had left the village and started living with her parents in another village. In order to spoil the career of the appellant, respondent no.1 and her brother were alleged to have started moving false and frivolous complaints to his employer stating therein that she was his legally wedded wife and that the marriage between them was solemnized in the month of August,1987. While denying this marriage completely, he alleged that on the basis of the false complaints made by respondent no.1, the Commandant, 54 Btn., HQ.,B.S.F., Karanpur, issued a letter dated 4.6.1998 to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal to enquire about his marital status as well as his relations with respondent no.1. He averred that respondent nos. 3 to 7 made false reports in order to prove his marriage with respondent no.1 at her instance and that of respondent no.2 vide reports dated 1.7.1998, 3.8.1998 & 10.8.1998 and that respondent no.8 issued false certificate of marriage. It was also pleaded that respondent nos. 3 to 8 were R.S.A.No.699 of 2008 -3- ... not witnesses to the marriage of the appellant and respondent no.1 and that no fair enquiry was made and false reports have been made to spoil the career of the appellant. The appellant had alleged that compromises dated 26.1.1996 and 25.11.1996 and reports dated 1.7.1998, 3.8.1998 and 10.8.1998 made by respondent nos. 3 to 7 and the marriage certificate attested by respondent no.8 are illegal, null & void and not binding on his rights and are liable to be ignored. He averred that he had married with Sudesh on 6.6.1998 and the alleged marriage with respondent no.1 being null & void, his said marriage with Sudesh was the only existing marriage. The respondents had filed their separate written statements. It was pleaded by respondent no.1 that her marriage was solemnized with appellant by way of karewa in the year 1987. It was averred that from this wedlock, a female child,namely, Mamta, was born and that the appellant had joined Border Security Force by concealing the above said fact. It was alleged that the appellant had started living with another lady, named Sudesh, and he had kept all the family members in dark and that the entire money was being sent to the said lady. It was averred that a compromise deed dated 25.11.1996 and affidavit dated 26.11.1996 were executed and the matter was also reported to the superior authorities of the appellant. The other respondents supported the reports as well as the certificate mentioned above. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:- R.S.A.No.699 of 2008 -4- ... 1. Whether the marriage of defendant no.1 with the plaintiff after the death of Zile Singh is void?OPP 2. Whether the reports made by defendants No. 3 to on 1.7.1998 and 3.8.1998, upon the basis of which letter dated 10.8.1998 was issued by defendant no.3, showing the defendant no.1 as wife of plaintiff, is illegal, null and void?OPP 3. Whether any compromise dated 25.11.1996 and affidavit dated 26.11.1996 executed by the plaintiff under threats of defendants No.1, 2 and 7 is illegal, null and void and not binding upon the rights of the plaintiff?OPP 4. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is time barred?OPD 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit?OPD 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct?OPD 9. Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction?OPD 10. Relief. The trial Court, after appraisal of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, dismissed the suit. Issue nos. 1 to 3 were R.S.A.No.699 of 2008 -5- ... taken up together for discussion and it was held thereunder that the marriage between the parties was legal and lawful and that reports dated 1.7.1998 and 3.8.1998 were also very much legal. The compromise dated 25.11.1996 and affidavit dated 26.11.1996 were held to have been executed by the appellant with his free will as he had failed to prove that such documents were obtained under threat. Issue nos. 4,7 and 9 were decided against the respondents, whereas issue nos. 5,6 and 8 were decided in their favour. In appeal, the First Appellate Court affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. Hence, this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. The crucial aspect of the matter is that the appellant himself did not appear in the witness box to testify in support of the pleas that had been raised in the plaint. The only evidence which has been produced on behalf of the appellant is in the shape of Exhibits P1 and P2 which have been issued by the Social Defence and Security Department, Haryana showing the list of beneficiaries under the Old Age Pension Scheme and at serial No.42, one Batheri Devi widow of Zila Ram is mentioned as one of them. These two documents have been discarded by both the Courts below and it has been held that the entry aforesaid belonged to some one else. I do not find any ground to differ with this finding as it is a finding of fact and nothing has been shown before this Court to the contrary. The evidence on record to the effect that respondent no.1 was R.S.A.No.699 of 2008 -6- ... married to the appellant in the year 1987 and a daughter was born out of this wedlock has gone unrebutted. In view of the above, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. In my opinion, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the instant appeal and the same is dismissed. January 19,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge