1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 143 OF 1999 Shahajirao s/o. Shankarrao Chauhan .. petitioners Versus Achut s/o. Shahajirao Chauhan .. Respondent. --- Mr. M.M. Patil Beedkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATE : 9th April, 2010 ORAL ORDER :- 1] Heard the counsel for the appellant extensively. 2] The concurrent findings againt the defendants are impugned in the second appeal. 3] The plaintiff No.1 Achut and plaintiff No.2 Rukhminibai filed suit for partition and separate possession of the property claiming that the plaintiff 2 No.1 Achyut is the son begotten from Rukhmibai and Sahhajirao Chavan. The paternity is disputed by Shahaji. 4] The courts, on analysis of the evidence found way back in 1978, in a criminal prosecution, the Son Shivaji has stated that Achut is the son of a keep of his father (Shahaji). This finding though in a criminal prosecution between the parties over dispute of taking crops in the agricultural field, however, will have its bearing in their relations. That apart, in the school record of Achyut, the SCC Certificate unequivocally establish Shahajirao as his father. Evidence was tried to be given by daughter of Shahaji staking a claim that about 10 to 15 years, prior to the case, RukhminibaI mother of Achuti had taken shelter in one of the Shahaji's house as a tenant and stay of Rukhminibai was with an agreement which has taken place in presence of said daughter Kaushabai (defendant NO.4). It is curious, even at the material time,Kaushabai was conscious that plaintiff No.1 was staying and his education has taken place at Hatola and thereafter at Bardapur after matriculation, the plaintiff No.1 was thereafter married. Her knowledge demerits about the rationality of the relations tried to be established by the plaintiff No.1 concerning Shahaji. 4] The theory of old record was tried to be propagated. However, record of 1951 was correctly evaluated by the courts as to its genuineness and courts rightly disbelieved contrary documents. 3 5] Since parties, and particularly, plaintiff No.2 was recognized as wife of Shahaji strong presumption which runs in favour of validity of marriage, is not dispelled. 6] It is well settled, acknowledgment of paternity of a child may be either by the father or the mother. However, maternity is a fact and paternity is an inference, accepted since time immemorial. 7] Taking stock of the entire evidence, the appreciation of evidence or the law bY both the courts, does not involve formulation of any substantial question of law between the parties. The appeal sans merit. Dismissed with civil applications. [K.U. CHANDIWALJ.] Grt/-