1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 118 OF 2008 Vatsala Fuldas Wasnik vs. Yamunabai wd/o Watu Khobragade & Ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 30, 2008. Heard Shri Ghare, Advocate for the appellant. He contends that the finding that present appellant is not daughter of Watu, is incorrect and in order to find out what substantial question of law can be raised in relation to such finding, I have perused the judgment of lower appellate Court as also trial Court with his assistance. It appears that independent evidence in relation thereto was available in the shape of statements recorded by Tahsildar in mutation proceedings but those statements have not been proved in accordance with law. The Courts below have, therefore, rightly discarded said evidence. The only evidence that remains available on record is, therefore, the entry of birth extract and other consequential documents. It is obvious that the documents are prepared as per instructions given by 2 some relative of present appellant and therefore, cannot be viewed as independent evidence. Thus, though independent evidence was available, no efforts have been made to rely upon it and as such I find that Courts below have concurrently and correctly found that she could not prove that she is daughter begotten from Watu. The contention was she was born to her mother Barjabai because of her pat-marriage with Watu. The custom of pat-marriage is also found to be not established. In these circumstances, I find that no substantial question of law arises in this Second Appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.