SUKH RAM Vs. KUNDAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAMJI Lal respondent No. 2, father of respondent No. 1, made a gift in favour of Sukh Ram appellant on December 22, 1965. This gift deed was challenged by Kundan respondent No. 1 on the ground that the property In dispute being ancestral qua him, it was not open to Ramji Lal respondent No. 7, to alienate the same by way of a gift. Before the learned Courts below a controversy was raised whether Kundan respondent No. 1 was the real son or pichhlag son of Ramji Lal donee. Both of them, after elaborate discussing of the evidence led in the case, came to the conclusion that he was the real son of Ramji Lal donee. On the basis of this finding and the finding that the property in dispute was ancestral, the learned trial Court decreed his suit. In appeal, only the status of Kundan respondent was challenged and other issues were not contested. As indicated earlier, the Court also held that Kundan was proved to be real son of Ramji Lal This is a pure finding of fact and is being challenged inter alia on the ground that certified copies of the birth entries were not proved in accordance with law and the list of voters Ex. PW 6/1 should not have been read into evidence. It is settled law that birth and death registers are public records within the meaning of Section 65 of the Evidence Act and entries contained therein can be proved by filing certified copies thereof. The only requirement of law is that the identity of the person concerned should be established and copies of such documents should be shown to relate to them. This appears to have been done in the instant case

(2.) FOR the reasons mentioned above, I find no force in this appeal and dismiss the same.