: 1 : SD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.752 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.752 OF 2007 SECOND APPEAL NO.752 OF 2007 Tulsabi Sakharam Patil ...Appellant V/s. Mahadev Joma Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.M. Railkar, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.M.S. Lagu, Advocate, for Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. CORAM : ABHAY S. OKA, J. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 25TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the appellant-original plaintiff. 2. Suit was filed by the appellant-plaintiff for partition and separate possession. The case of the appellant-plaintiff is that her father died 30 to 35 years back before the institution of the suit. Her father Joma Patil was the original owner of the suit property. The defence of the contesting respondents is that the said Joma Patil died on 10th February, 1930 i.e. before the date on which the provisions of the Hindu Womens’ Right to Property Act, 1937 was brought into force and therefore the appellant will not be entitled to any share. The Courts below have : 2 : relied upon the death extract of the said Joma which was produced at Exhibit-46 which shows that the said Joma died on 10th February, 1930. Therefore, both the Courts below held that the appellant will not be entitled to claim any share. 3. The submission of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that the alleged entry of death of Joma was in Modi script and in absence of any authentic transcription thereof, the document at Exhibit-46 was not admissible in evidence as the death extract of the deceased Joma. The submission is that there is no affidavit produced or no evidence adduced of the person who has made the transcription. It is, therefore, submitted that the said document at Exhibit-46 is required to be discarded and therefore the case made out by the appellant has to be accepted. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. It must be noted that the entry of death in the record has been made obviously prior to coming into force of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. It is not in dispute that the entry of date of death in the register is in Marathi language but it is in Modi script. The Appellate Court has noted that there is an endorsement made by the Tahsildar of Aajara below : 3 : the certified copy of the extract of death register at Exhibit-46 that the original entry in Modi script has been transcribed in the Marathi script. 5. In view of the aforesaid endorsment made by the concerned Revenue Officer on the extract at Exhibit- 46, the Courts below have accepted that the death extract as a genuine document which shows that Joma died in the year 1930. 6. I find no error in the approach of the Courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Second Appeal is dismissed. [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.] [ABHAY S. OKA, J.]