SHIV KUMAR Vs. UCHEN BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal preferred by the plaintiff under Section 100 of the CPC has been admitted by formulating the following substantial question of law for determination which states as under:

(2.) The appellant / plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title that he is son of Late Punau Ram Sahu out of his wedlock with Bisahin Bai and as such entitled for the property left by Punau Ram Sahu and thus, he be declared exclusive owner of the suit property. The defendants denied the plaint allegations and disputed the status of the plaintiff being the son of Late Punau Ram Sahu. The trial Court on due appreciation of evidence on record held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he is the legitimate son of Punau Ram Sahu which was affirmed by the first appellate Court in the appeal preferred by the plaintiff and thus, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff in which the substantial question of law has been framed which has been set-out in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff / appellant would submit that the concurrent finding recorded by the two Courts below in dismissing the suit and disbelieving the birth register Ex.P-1 is perverse and contrary to record.