IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.139 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.139 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.139 OF 2007 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1193 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.1193 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.1193 OF 2007 IN IN IN SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO.139 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.139 OF 2007 APPEAL NO.139 OF 2007 Sau Shakuntala Subrao Desai & Ors. ...Appellants/ Applicants Versus. Sau Sharubai Sambhaji Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Shri M.R.Suryawanshi for the Appellants/Applicants. Shri Y.Sakhare for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 11th February, 2008. : 11th February, 2008. : 11th February, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Second Appeal is by the original first and second defendants. The first and second defendants are the original plaintiffs. 2. According to the case of the first and second respondents, their common ancestor Dadu had a son by the name Balu. According to their case, they are the daughters of Balu born to his first wife Kerubai. According to them the first appellant Shakuntala is the daughter of Balu born to his second wife Tulsabai. The second appellant (second defendant) is the husband of the first appellant. A suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. The defence of the appellants was that the second respondent was not a daughter of Balu. According to the appellants they had no knowledge whether the second respondent was : 2 : 2 : 2 : born to Kerubai after Kerubai absconded. One more defence of the appellants was of a prior partition. 2. The trial Court held that the second respondent was the daughter of Balu begotten from Kerubai. While recording a finding on the status of the second respondent, the learned trial Judge relied upon an entry made in Birth Extract maintained by the authorities. The decree for partition passed by the trial Court has been confirmed in appeal preferred by the first appellant herein. 3. Civil Application No.1193 of 2007 has been filed by the appellants for leading additional evidence. It is contended that the Birth and Death Register maintained by the office of Tahsildar, Gadhinglaj does not show an entry of birth of the second respondent on 15th March, 1945 and therefore, was is produced by the first and second respondents in the trial Court is a fabricated entry. Reliance is placed on a letter dated 13th April, 2006 sent by the Tahsildar in which it is recorded that there is no entry in the Birth and Death Register of the year 1945 showing the birth of the second respondent to the said Balu Dadu Patil. Therefore, by order dated 10th January, 2008 this Court called for the original Birth and Death Register. Accordingly, a representative of Tahsildar has produced the said register. : 3 : 3 : 3 : 4. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is that there is material on record to show that there were two persons by the name Balu. He submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that the second respondent is the daughter of the said Balu Dadu Patil born from the wedlock of the said Balu with his first wife Kerubai. He submitted that the evidence adduced by the respondents shows that the second respondent could not be the daughter of said Balu Dadu Patil. The advocate for the appellants tried to place reliance on certain documents which are not on record of the suit or appeal to show that the second respondent could not be the daughter of said Balu Dadu Patil. He submitted that there was no evidence adduced by the second respondent as regards her place of birth. He submitted that evidence of the second respondent shows that she was not familiar with the names of the relatives of the said Balu Dadu Patil. He, therefore, submitted that both the courts below have committed an error by accepting the case made out by the first and second respondents. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. The representative of the Tahsildar has produced for my perusal the Birth and Death Register of village Harali Khurd of the year 1944-45. There is an entry made at serial No.56 in the said register on 15th March, 1945 : 4 : 4 : 4 : showing the birth of the second respondent. The name of Balu Dadu Patil has been shown as the father of the girl. There is an endorsement made on the said entry by the trial Court that the said entry has been exhibited as Exhibit 86 and after perusing the said entry, the original register has been returned to the representative of the Tahsildar. It is thus obvious that there is no merit in the application for additional evidence filed by the appellants. Both the courts below have accepted the entry in the Birth and Death Register as an evidence of the fact that the second respondent is the daughter of Balu Dadu Patil. 6. The courts below have considered the oral and documentary evidence on record and have accepted the case made out by the second respondent. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, it is not possible to accept the contentions raised by the advocate for the appellants. 7. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. Civil Application No.1193 of 2007 is rejected. Judge. Judge. Judge.