1. Heard Mr. Bhatkuly, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms. N. Pimenta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. The above appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law.

(1) Whether the impugned judgment and order of both the Lower Courts are vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence, particularly the deposition at pages 12 and 13 of the DW.1 and that the plaintiff was out of Goa from September, 1991 to November, 1992 and returned only once during this period and that too 10 days after the birth of defendant no.2 and therefore, whether the findings in that regard are perverse?

(2) Whether the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit by placing the onus of proof on the plaintiff, when due to the admission of DW.1 and pages 12 and 13 of her deposition, the onus of proof had shifted on the defendants?

3. The appellant filed a suit disputing the paternity of the child which came to be born to the respondent no.1. It was the case of the appellant that he had no access to the respondent no.1 as according to him, he was in employment and living in Bombay and not in village Velim where the respondent no.1 was residing. I