But the first appellate companyrt, after re evaluating the entire evidence, found that the husband plaintiff succeeded in discharging the burden for rebutting the presumption by proving that he had numberaccess to the mother of the child during a very long stretch of time companyering the relevant period.
Then the husband filed a civil suit for a decree declaring that he is number the father of the child, as he had numberaccess to the appellant Kamti Devi during the period when the child would have been begotten.
On the strength of the said finding the first appellate companyrt allowed the appeal and decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is number the father of the child Roshan Lal.
For almost fifteen years thereafter Kamti Devi remained childless and on 4.9.1989 she gave birth to a male child his name is Roshan Lal .
The facts which led to the said finding are the following The marriage between appellant Kamti Devi and respondent Poshi Ram was solemnised in the year 1975.
Soon after the birth of the child it was sought to be recorded in the Register under the Births, Deaths and Marriages Registration Act.
The long period in between was marked by internecine legal battles in which the spouses engaged as against each other.
Accordingly the suit was dismissed.
