1 S.A.No.682/10. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.682 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 09.12.2010. 1. This is appeal by the defendants. The plaintiff had filed a suit for partition and possession of a share in the suit property on the ground that Abdul Karim was original owner of the property and is the son of Abdul Karim. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants being aggrieved by the same, preferred an appeal. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The defendants have assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2. Mr.Kalani, learned counsel for the 2 S.A.No.682/10. appellant contended that the Courts below committed an error in placing reliance on the voters list and the transfer certificate. The voters list though may be a public document, has not been proved as is required U/s 78 of the Indian Evidence Act. According to the learned counsel, the plaintiff has failed to prove by preponderance of probabilities that he was the son of Abdul Karim and defendant No.6. The plaintiff could not prove that Abdul Karim and defendant No.6 had access with each other. Mr.Kalani, further contended that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as it has come on record that Abdul Karim had two sisters who were not made parties. On this count itself, the suit should have been dismissed. 3. Per contra, Mr.Pathan, learned counsel submitted that the plaintiff has proved that he is the son of Abdul Karim and defendant No.6 by adducing sufficient evidence such as voters list, transfer certificate, the objection filed by the plaintiff before Talathi, copy of license and other circumstances and evidence as has been detailed 3 S.A.No.682/10. by the Court below in para 16 of its judgment. When the plaintiff has proved that he is the son of Abdul Karim and defendant No.5 then he is entitled to the share in the property. Abdul Karim was exclusive owner of the property and on his death, his sisters would not be getting any share, so no question arises of impleading them as parties. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsels, I have gone through the judgments. As far as objection of Mr.Kalani, learned counsel regarding non-compliance of Section 78 of the Indian Evidence Act, is concerned, the same is not sustainable. The voters list being a public document and the same is produced in Court is admissible in evidence. Moreover, i.e. not the solitary document relied on by the Courts below. The Courts have also taken into consideration the oral evidence such as evidence of defendant No.6 and various documents issued by the authorities, transfer certificate and had come to the probable conclusion. The sisters would not get any share inasmuch as the lands were inam lands and after 4 S.A.No.682/10. they were abolished, the occupancy was granted in favour of Abdul Karim. The suit as such was not bad in law on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. 5. The Second Appeal being sans substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.09.12.2010. asp/office/sa682.10 5 S.A.No.682/10.