1 2026:CGHC:26433-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 53 of 2022 1. Purushottam Das S/o Shri Ayodhya Das, Aged About 70 Years R/o Vill Dabhrakhurd, Tah. Champa, Dist. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) ... Appellant/Plaintiff versus 1. Smt. Suman W/o Late Kanhaiya Das, Aged About 52 Years R/o Vill Dabhrakhurd, Tah. Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 2. Gitesh, S/o Kanhaiya Das Vaishnav, Aged About 26 Years R/o Vill Dabhrakhurd, Tah. Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 3. Oshma, D/o Kanhaiya Das Vaishnav, Aged About 20 Years R/o Vill Dabhrakhurd, Tah. Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. Tushriya, D/o Kanhaiya Das Vaishnav Aged About 25 Years R/o Vill Dabhrakhurd, Tah. Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Rupanti, D/o Kanhaiya Das Vaishnav Aged About 22 Years R/o Vill Dabhrakhurd, Tah. Champa, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 6. Narottam Das S/o Ayodhya Prasad Vaishnav Aged About 67 Years R/o Vill Dabhrakhurd, Tah. Champa, Dist. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) 7. Ramji Das Ayodhya Prasad Vaishnav, Aged About 61 Years Address- Senior Plant Asst. Office Superintendent (Operation) SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 2 Two, Sanjay Gandhi Thermal Electricity Plant, M.P. Power, Generation Company Ltd. Birsinghpur, Dist. Umariya (M.P.) 8. Punibai, W/o Late Darshndas Vaishnav , D/o Ayodhya Prasad, Aged About 76 Years R/o Vill Bhainstara, Tah. Baloda, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 9. Khikh Bai, W/o Aaramdas ,d/o Ayodhya Prasad Vaishnav, Aged About 57 Years R/o Vill- Pantora, Tah. Baloda, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 10.Smt. Kshama Bai W/o Late Kanhiya Das Vaishnav Aged About 60 Years R/o Vill- Dabhrakhurd, Present Address- Khisora, Tah. Baloda, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 11.Godawari Bai, W/o Late Bhagwat Das, Aged About 65 Years R/o Vill- Dabhrakhurd, Present Address Vitthal Market, Habibganj, Block No. 4, House No. 22, Bhopal (M.P.) 12. Janki, D/o Bhagwat Das Vaishnav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Vill- Dabhrakhurd, Present Address Vitthal Market, Habibganj, Block No. 4, House No. 22, Bhopal (M.P.) 13. Narayan, S/o Bhagwat Das Aged About 30 Years R/o Vill- Dabhrakhurd, Present Address Vitthal Market, Habibganj, Block No. 4, House No. 22, Bhopal (M.P.) 14. Chhtardas Vaishnav, S/o Late Bhushan Das Aged About 71 Years R/o Vill- Limtara, P.O. & Tah. Masturi, Dist. - Bilaspur (C.G.) 15. Ramkhilawan Vaishnav, S/o Late Bhushan Das Aged About 70 Years R/o Vill- Limtara, P.O. And Tah. Masturi, Dist. - Bilaspur (C.G.) 16. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Collector, Janjgir, Dist- Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. H.V. Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.1 to 5; 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 : Mr. A.K. Yadav, Advocate For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Vaibhav A Goverdhan, Advocate For Respondent No.16 : Mr. Ajay Kumarani, Panel Lawyer 3 DB: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Parth Prateem Sahu & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J 29.06.2026 1. This first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) is filed against the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2022 passed in Civil Suit No.13-A/2017 by which learned 1st Additional District Judge, Jangjir, District Janjgir Champa has dismissed the suit of plaintiff/appellant herein. 2. Appellant herein was the plaintiff whereas respondents were defendants before the trial Court. The parties shall be referred to as per their position before the Trial Court for convenience. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, as unfolded before the trial Court, are that, plaintiff/appellant herein has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of land of 07 different khasra numbers, total area 3.92 acre (1.794 hectare) situated in village Dabrakhurd, District Janjgir Champa and a house constructed thereon, pleading that plaintiff and defendant No.6 to 14 being descendants of one Gopidas, are members of one family and they are governed by Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. Defendant No.10-Kshama Bai was legally wedded wife of Kanhaiya Das (son of Gopidas) and defendant No.1-Suman was his friend. During lifetime of 4 defendant No.10-Kshama, Kanhaiya Das had kept defendant No.1-Suman with him as his female friend. Defendants No.2 to 5 are daughters of Defendant No.1-Suman. Kanhaiya Das had breathed his last about 9 years back. Dhajaram, husband of defendant No.1-Suman, has been residing in village Chhoterabeli. Suit property is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.6 to14; the partition is not effected between them and for the last 8-10 years all are residing in the house and earning livelihood from the suit land under a mutual settlement. Defendant No.1 to 5 have no title over suit land and house. However, Kanhaiya Das permitted defendant No.1 and daughters born out from her to reside in a room of the house constructed over suit land. After the death of Kanhaiya Das, defendant No.1 got recorded her name and name of her daughters in revenue records as heirs of Kanhaiya Das in respect of the suit property, leaving name of defendant No.10-Kshama Bai, legally wedded wife of Kanhaiya Das. Thereafter, defendant No.1 had obtained the order from the Naib Tahsildar Bamnidih for division of accounts and also an order of partition from the revenue officers. Plaintiff and defendant No.6 preferred an appeal against the order of Tahsildar before the Sub-Divisional Officer Champa and after dismissal of appeal, a second appeal is preferred by them, which is pending consideration 5 before the Commissioner, Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur. On the aforesaid pleadings and grounds, it is prayed by plaintiff that it be declared that plaintiff and respondent No.6 to 14 are owners of the suit property; defendant No.1 to 5 has no title over it and they be restrained by an injunction from effecting partition. 4. On service of summons, defendants No.1 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 appeared through their counsel and filed joint written statement denying the plaint averments. It was pleaded that Defendant No.1 is the legally wedded wife of Kanhaiya and defendant No.2 to 5 are their children. Defendant No.10- Kshama was never married to Kanhaiya Das. It is denied that one room of the house constructed over suit land was given to defendant No.1 to 5 to reside. After the death of Kanhaiya, name of defendant No.1 to 5 came to be recorded in revenue records on 26.09.2011 which was not objected by plaintiff and defendant No.6 to 14. Defendant No.1 to 5 have acquired the suit property in succession and they being owners are in possession of the same. Partition of suit land and house has taken place. Plaintiff and defendant No.6 to 14 have not filed any objection In the proceeding of division of accounts pending before the Tahsildar. As defendant No.10 is not the legally wedded wife of Kanhaiyadas, her name cannot be mutated, there has been no incorrect or illegal entry in 6 revenue records. Plaint is filed on false grounds and is barred by limitation. With the aforesaid averments, it is prayed that suit be dismissed. 5. Defendant No.6,10, 14 and 15 did not appear before the trial, therefore, they have been proceeded ex-parte and they did not file written statement. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as six issues for adjudication and allowed the parties to lead evidence in support of their respective cases. In order to establish his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and Kishnolal as PW-2. Plaintiff also exhibited documents which were marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-5. On the other hand, defendant No.1-Suman appeared as DW-1, defendant No.7 as DW-2, Brajkishore Tiwari as DW-3 and they also exhibited the documents as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-36. The Trial Court on the basis of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, by the impugned judgment dismissed suit of plaintiff/appellant with cost of Rs.25,000/-, which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of plaintiff/appellant has argued that the impugned judgment and decree is patently illegal, erroneous, suffers from non-application of mind and has been passed ignoring the evidence available on record. He argues that Kishnolal (PW-2), an independent witness, has clearly stated in his statement that marriage of defendant 7 No.10 was solemnized with Kanhaiya about 30-35 years ago and he attended their marriage. In genealogical tree given in written statement, Ex.D-1, submitted before the Tahsildar in the proceeding for division of accounts, defendant No.10 is shown as legal heir of deceased Kanhaiya. Thus, plaintiff/ appellant has brought on record sufficient material to prove that defendant No.10 is the first legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya. Existence of a prior, valid, and subsisting marriage completely invalidates any subsequent claim of marriage by defendant No.1 under the Hindu Law, rendering any secondary relationship void ab initio and therefore, respondent No.1 to 5 are not entitled to inherit share of deceased Kanhaiya in the suit property. However, learned trial Court ignoring the evidence of plaintiff, in particular Ex.D-1, has erroneously held that the plaintiff had failed to prove that defendant No.10-Kshama was legally wedded wife of Late Kanhaiya. He further contended that mere entries in revenue records do not by themselves confer ownership rights over property and the title is to be established only through lawful succession, a valid will or a decree passed by a competent court. Even, the order of mutation passed in favour of respondent No.1 to 4 has been set aside by the Commissioner and the matter is remanded back to pass order afresh. He also prayed that cost imposed by learned trial 8 Court vide impugned judgment is on higher side and therefore the same be waived. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 opposing submission of learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant, would submit that the suit was filed by the plaintiff, as such, burden was upon plaintiff to prove that defendant No.10 was legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya, which he failed to discharge by adducing sufficient evidence and therefore, learned trial Court was justified in holding that plaintiff failed to prove that respondent No.10 was legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya. He further submits that except the plaintiff, other co-owners of suit property have not disputed status of defendant No.1 as legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya or the status of defendant No.2 to 5 as children born out from the conjugal relationship of defendant No.1 and deceased Kanhaiya by filing written statement. DW-2 Ramjidas, real brother of Kanhaiya and plaintiff, has clearly stated in his statement that respondent No.1-Suman is the legally wedded wife of Late Kanhaiya and after the death of Kanhaiya, name of respondent Nos.1 to 5 came to be mutated in revenue records, which was not objected by any of the family members, and thereafter partition order was also passed by competent authority and pursuant thereto they are 9 in possession of their respective shares. He further submits that factum of marriage of Kanhaiya and Suman stands proved from the statement of Brijkishore Tiwari (DW3), son of the Priest who performed marriage of Kanhaiya and Suman. According to this witness, he was present at the time of marriage of Suman with Kanhaiya and marriage was solemnized by his father, who was a Priest. Kshama Bai was impleaded as party defendant however, she did not chose to contest the suit as a wife of Kanhaiya. He next contended that plaintiff has no locus to dispute marital status of defendant No.1 and deceased Kanhaiya. Plaintiff/appellant has filed suit on false grounds in order to deprive the rights accrued to defendants No.1 to 5 being legal heirs of deceased Kanhaiya and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of appeal. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant No.6/respondent No.6, who was proceeded ex-parte before the trial Court and did not file written statement or adduce any evidence, has advanced the arguments in support of contention of plaintiff/appellant herein that defendant No.10 was the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya and defendant No.1 was only a female friend of Kanhaiya. 10. Heard learned counsel for respective parties and perused the record of trial Court including the impugned judgment. 10 11. Case of plaintiff, as had already been discussed, is that defendant No.10/respondent No.10 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya. Respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya and therefore, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 to 5, who are children of respondent No.1, are not entitled to inherit the share of deceased Kanhaiya in the suit property after his death. 12. On the other hand, the defendants No.1 to 5, 7 to 9 and 11 to 13 claimed that respondent No.1 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya and after the death of Kanhaiya, they had become owner of the share of Kanhaiya in the suit property. Defendant No.10/respondent No.10 was never married to deceased Kanhaiyadas. 13. Section 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 envisages that the burden of proof in any suit or proceeding rests squarely upon the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. Section 102 reads as under: “102. On whom burden of proof lies. –– The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.” 14. In the present case, the plaintiff/appellant has claimed decree of declaration and permanent injunction pleading that defendant No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya, therefore, in the light of aforesaid provision, the 11 onus to prove said fact is upon the plaintiff. In order to discharge the aforesaid onus, the plaintiff/appellant herein has examined himself as PW-1 and one Kishnolal (PW-2). 15. Plaintiff-appellant (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that defendant No.10-Kshama is the legally married wife of deceased Kanhaiya and defendant No.1-Suman was female friend of deceased Kanhaiya. During lifetime of his married wife-Kshama, Kanhaiyadas has brought defendant No.1- Suman and kept her with him as a female friend till his death. Husband of defendant No.1-Dhajaram resides in Chhotebareli. Suit property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendant No.6 to 14, they are in possession of their respective share under a mutual settlement between them and permanent partition has yet not taken place. Defendant No.1 Suman has no title over the suit property. Defendant No.1 to 5 are in possession of a room of suit house with the permission of deceased Kanhaiya. Defendant No.1 tacitly got mutated name of herself and her daughters in revenue records as heirs of Kanhaiya. In cross-examination, plaintiff has admitted that he has filed reply/written statement (Ex.D-1) in mutation proceeding filed by defendant No.1 to 5. 16. Kishno Lal (PW-2) has stated in his statement that defendant No.10-Kshama is the legally married wife of deceased Kanhaiya. Defendant No.1-Suman was female friend of 12 deceased Kanhaiya. Defendant No.1 was brought by Kanhaiya during lifetime of Kshama. In the cross-examination, this witness has stated that he does not remember when marriage of Kanhaiya and Suman was solemnized, though he has not attended their marriage but as per his knowledge, their marriage was solemnized about 15-21 years ago. He has further stated that marriage of Kanhaiya was solemnized with Kshama 30-35 years prior to marriage of Suman and Kanhaiya and he has attended the marriage. He does not remember the date, month or year of the marriage of Kanhaiya with Kshama. 17. Defendant No.1-Suman examined herself as DW-1 and stated that she is legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya and defendant No.2 to 5 are children born out from their relationship. In support of her claim, she has produced ration- card (Ex.D-4), voter ID card (Ex.D-12) in which name of her husband is mentioned as Kanhaiyadas. She has also produced school admission register of her children as Ex.D-5 to Ex.D-8 as also mark sheets as Ex.D-15 and Ex.D-16 in which name of their father is mentioned as Kanhaiyadas. 18. Ramji Das Vaishnav (DW-2), brother of Kanhaiya and plaintiff, has stated in his evidence that marriage of Kanhaiya was solemnized with defendant No.1-Suman and not with any other lady. She is legally wedded wife of Kanhaiya and from 13 their conjugal relationship, defendant No.2 to 5 were born out. He has stated that after the death of Kanhaiya, name of defendants No.1 to 5 was mutated in revenue records and none had objected to it. Even in the partition proceeding before the Tahsildar, they had not raised any objection. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that at the time of marriage, Kanhaiya was 32-35 years and Suman was 21- 22 years. He has denied the suggestion that Kanhaiya was earlier married to Kshama Bai. 19. Brijkishore Tiwari (DW-3) is the son of the priest who had performed the marriage of defendant No.1 with Kanhaiya and he has deposed in his evidence that marriage of defendant No.1 was solemnized with Kanhaiya; his father, who was priest, had performed the marriage. 20. It is well settled principle that preponderance of probabilities is a legal standard of proof, mainly in civil cases, meaning a fact is considered true if an evidence shows it is more likely then not to have happened, outweighing the opposite. It is like a balance scale where the evidence for one side weights more heavily even slightly than other proving the claim is more plausible than not. It is like tipping the scale of justice which is slightly in favour of one side, not needing absolute proof. It is about considering a fact to be more plausible or probable based on evidence. 14 21. In case of Dr. N. G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SCC 326, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :- “24. The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either believes it to exist considers its existence so probably that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he inks that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact. As a prudent man, so the court applies this test for finding whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable a the second. Within the wide range of probabilities, the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issue like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note: "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue "Per Dixon, J. In Wright vs. Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear". Blyth vs. Blyth (1966) 1 A.E.R. 534 at 536. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of 15 proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged". 22. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities was discussed in the judgment titled Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Vs. Jaspal Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 330 which reads as under :- "17. In Syad Akbar Vs State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 this curt dealt with in details the distinction between negligence in civil law n din criminal law. It has been held that there is marked difference as to the effect of evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt". 23. In the case of M. Siddiq (Dead) Through Legal Representatives (Ram Janambhumi Temple Case) vs. Mahant Suresh Das and others, reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:- “721. The law recognises that within the standard of preponderance of probabilities, there could be different degrees of probability. This was succinctly summarised by Denning, L.J. in Bater v. Bater, 1951 P. 35 (CA) where he formulated the principle thus: (p. 37) "... So also in civil cases, the case must be proved by a preponderance of probability, but there may be degrees of probability within that standard. The degree depends on the subject-matter." (emphasis supplied) 16 725. The Court recognised that within the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the degree of probability is based on the subject-matter involved. 726. In State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, [State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 928], this Court observed: (SCC p. 314, para 26) "26. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the Judge." 24. If we examine the facts and evidence of present case, as discussed above, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probabilities, it is apparent that plaintiff/appellant primarily relies on his own self-serving testimony and that of Kishnolal (PW-2) to assert that defendant No.10- Kshama was the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya and defendant No.1-Suman was merely a "female friend". However, plaintiff/appellant herein failed to demonstrate or produce any kind of documentary evidence i.e. documentary, establishing the fact that defendant No.10-Kshama Bai is the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya. He had not examined any relative or elderly person who had attended the marriage 17 or the priest who had performed marriage of defendant No.10-Kshama with Kanhaiya. Most importantly, the factum of marriage of defendant No.1 with Kanhaiya has been admitted by Kishnolal (PW-2) in Para-4 of his cross-examination. 25. Defendants No.1 in support of her claim to be legally wedded wife has examined real brother of Kanhaiy namely Ramji Vaishnav as DW-2, Brijkishore Tiwari as DW-3, who is son of the priest, who had performed marriage of defendant No.1 and Kanhaiya, and attended the marriage. Defendant No.1 has also filed documentary evidence like ration card, voter ID, school admission register and mark sheets of her children in which Kanhaiya is shown to be husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant No.2 to 5. Defendant No.1 has also produced copy of mutation order dated 26.9.2011 (Ex.D-19) according to which suit property is inherited by defendants No.1 to 5 on death of Kanhaiydas. Witness examined by plaintiff/appellant as PW-2 has admitted in his cross- examination that defendant No.10-Kshama Bai lived with Kanhaiya for 6-7 months only. Marriage of defendant No.1- Suman with Kanhaiya was solemnized about 21 years back and he had not attended the same. Thus, from the consistent oral testimonies of the real brother of deceased Kanhaiyadas, namely Ramji Vaishnav (DW-2) and Brajkishore Tiwari (DW- 3), son of Priest, who had performed marriage of Suman and 18 Kanhaiya, coupled with public records like ration card, school admission registers, and mark sheets, clearly suggests that defendant No.1 lived with Kanhaiyadas in his house til his last breathe. 26. It would be beneficial to refer to decision of Andrahennedige Dinohamy and Anr. v. Wijetunge Liyanapatabendige Balahamy and Ors., reported in 1927 SCC OnLine PC 51 wherein the Privy Council observed that: “….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". 27. In case of Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. reported in (1978) 3 SCC 527 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: - “…. 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. …" 28. Recently, in case of Smt. Shiramabai vs The Captain Record Officer, reported in (2024) 16 SCC 773, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when a man and woman live together continuously and public documents record them as a 19 couple, the relationship cannot be loosely termed as concubinage unless strong, conclusive evidence to the contrary is produced. 29. Above referred rulings demonstrate that the legal position enunciates a presumption in favour of a marriage where a man and a woman have engaged in prolonged and continuous cohabitation. Such a presumption, though rebuttable in nature, can only be displaced by unimpeachable evidence. The burden lies heavily on the party seeking to question the cohabitation and to deprive the relationship of legal sanctity. 30. From the evidence of DW-2 Ramji, real brother of deceased Kanhaiyadas, it can be seen that defendant No.1-Suman had been resided with deceased Kanhaiyadas till his last breath. Even the plaintiff’s witness namely Kishnolal (PW-2) had admitted that defendant No.1 and deceased Kanhaiya had lived together continuously a long period. Such prolonged cohabitation attracts a strong presumption in favour of a valid wedlock. Thus, a reasonable presumption can, therefore, be drawn that deceased Kanhaiyadas maintained the relationship with defendant No.1 for years together. 31. In the present case, appellant, except for mere denial, has not brought on record any material, oral or documentary, to rebut the evidence of DW-2 Ramji, brother of plaintiff and 20 deceased Kanhaiya, of a valid marriage between deceased Kanhaiyadas and defendant No.1/respondent herein. There is no material on record to suggest that DW-2 is an interested witness. His testimony is free from embellishment and stood the cross-examination. The narrative appears to be rooted in personal knowledge and long-standing acquaintance with both the plaintiff and defendants. 32. Plaintiff/ appellant has specifically pleaded that defendant No.1 is already married to Dhajaram, who resides in Chhotebareli. This assertion, if proved, would have been fatal to validity of her marriage with deceased Kanhaiya. Despite making this specific pleading, the plaintiff failed to summon or examine Dhajaram as a witness. Dhajaram was the most critical witness to prove existence of a prior, subsisting marriage of defendant No.1/respondent No.1. 33. That apart, plaintiff's entire suit rests on the claim that defendant No.10-Kshama Bai is the only legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya. However, defendant No.10 has refused to accept notice and therefore, she was proceeded ex-parte and no written statement was filed on her behalf supporting the plaintiff's claims. If marital rights of defendant No.10 had been usurped by defendant No.1, she would be the most aggrieved party. However, total silence and refusal on the part of defendant No.10 to support the plaintiff/ 21 appellant creates doubt. Further, the revenue record clearly shows that name of defendant No.1 to 5 are mutated as co- owners being legal heirs of deceased Kanhaiya. It is not in dispute that defendant No.10 has not challenged these mutation entries before any competent revenue or civil forum. 34. Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants No. 1 to 5 are occupying a portion of the suit house merely out of "permissive possession" granted by Kanhaiya is not corroborated by any independent evidence. Continuous physical possession of the suit property by defendant No.1 to 5, coupled with their status in the revenue records and evidence of Ramji (DW-2), strongly reinforces their position as natural legal heirs of deceased Kanhaiya. 35. Indisputably, learned counsel representing defendant No.6/ respondent No.6 before this Court has supported the case of plaintiff/appellant. However, it is appearing from the record of trial court that defendant No.6 was proceeded ex-parte and no written statement was filed on his behalf. In civil cases, oral argument without there being proof of pleadings by oral evidence entering into witness box is not accepable. Therefore, plaintiff/appellant cannot derive any advantage from the support of an ex-parte defendant. Even, burden of establishing the claim always rests upon the plaintiff and cannot be discharged through subsequent conduct or 22 concession of a defendant who was proceeded ex-parte before trial Court. 36. Considering the facts and circumstances, as discussed above, in the light of above decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the considered opinion of this Court, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof placed upon him. He failed to establish that defendant No.10 is the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya. Besides oral testimony of plaintiff, no evidence is brought on record by the plaintiff, collectively or in isolation, which would aid in establishing the conjugal relationship between defendant No.10 and deceased Kanhaiya. This being the position, in the considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant herein. 37. As regards application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC on behalf of plaintiff/appellant, the documents filed by appellant along with application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is the order dated 6.6.2023 passed by the Commissioner Bilaspur Division, Bilaspur in the appeal filed by respondent No.6 by which the order dated 30.1.2017 passed by the Sub- Divisional Officer (R) dismissing the appeal of respondent No.6 herein filed against the order of partition dated 23 28.11.2014 passed by the Tahsildar, is set aside and the matter was remanded back to Tahsildar Bamnidih, on the grounds mentioned therein, to decide it afresh on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties and to adduce evidence. 38. Case of plaintiff/appellant is that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya and therefore, defendant Nos.1 to 5/respondents No.1 to 5 are not entitled to inherit the share of deceased Kanhaiya in the suit property. Whereas, the order of remand passed by the Commissioner on 6.6.2023, which is sought to be brought on record by learned counsel for appellant, relates to mutation/partition of the property between the parties therein. This remand order only show that proper procedure has not been followed while deciding application for mutation/partition. A revenue order concerning mutation and partition cannot decide, clarify, or alter a person's marital status. The task of deciding marital status of the parties has been exclusively conferred with the civil Courts and in case at hand, learned trial Court after marshalling of evidence brought on record by the plaintiff/appellant herein has already held that appellant herein failed to prove that defendant No.1/respondent No.1 is not the legally wedded wife of deceased Kanhaiya. Hence, the remand order sought to be 24 brought on record cannot be held to be relevant and material for decision on the point in issue between the parties. Consequently, I.A. No.4/2023 is rejected. 39. Insofar as imposition of cost upon the plaintiff/appellant herein by learned trial Court, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the same appears to be on higher side and needs to be reduced to some extent. Hence, imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- is reduced to Rs.10,000/-, which shall be payable by plaintiff/appellant herein to the defendants No.1 to 5/ respondent No.1 to 5. 40. In the result, the appeal being meritless is liable to be and is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court is affirmed. The cost of Rs.25,000/- imposed by the trial court on the plaintiff/appellant is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. 41. A decree be drawn-up accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge roshan/-