TAMIJUDDIN SARKAR Vs. TAZU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The original owner of the property it appears was one Jungu Sarkar. The plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents before us, were the sons of his daughter, Tarabai Bibi. The defendant No. 2 was another daughter, while the principal defendant, who is the appellant before us, was the son of Jungu Sarkar. The parties, it may be observed, are Mahomedans.

(2.) With regard to defendant No. 2 it was urged in the Courts below, that her right to a share had been extinguished by adverse possession. Both Courts have decided against the appellant on that point, and with respect to that, the only matter that is urged before us is that the District Judge is wrong in saying that there is evidence to show that some of the respondents at times participated to some extent in the fruits of the property. It was suggested that such evidence as there is, bears only upon the case of the plaintiffs. But that, we find from the judgment of the first Court, is not correct. The value of the evidence of course is a matter not for us to consider in second appeal. That contention of the appellant therefore fails.

(3.) With regard to the plaintiffs it was contended on behalf of the appellant that their mother Tarabai Bibi had predeceased their father Jungu Sarkar, and that the sons consequently are not entitled to any share. That question has also been decided against the appellant, and the only point taken here in that connection is, that both the Courts below have erred in admitting in evidence the certified copy of an entry made in a register of deaths kept at the local thana. It is contended that the said register is not a "public document" within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. That question again turns upon the further question whether the said register is an official book or register, and the entry made was made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, within the meaning of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.