Testimonies of witnesses on a person's parentage can be admissible under Section 50 of the Evidence Act if they fulfill the requirements of special means of knowledge and expression of opinion through conduct.

A.B.N.Sinha, J.

1. This appeal is by the defendants. It is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below decreeing the plaintiffs suit for declaration of title to, recovery of possession of and mesne profits in respect of 1 bigha 11 kathas 11 dhurs of land out of survey plots 265 and 269 appertaining to khata No. 79, tauzi No. 7143 of village Sahdeni, district Muzaffarpur, which admittedly belonged to one Sheikh Mahbub whose name stood recorded in the survey record of rights in respect of the khata in question. According to the defendants-appellants themselves, Sheikh Mahbub died sometime in 1906.

2. Trie plaintiff claims to be the daughter of Sheikh Mahbub. Her case is that after the death of her father, she along with her mother inherited the properties including khata No. 79 left by him and continued in possession as such. Her mother, according to her case, died about twelve years before the institution of the suit, and, the plaintiff asserted that since then she has continued in exclusive possession of the suit lands until the 15th November, 1955 when the defendants illegally dispossessed her. On these allegations, the plaintiff prayed for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits.

3. The case of the defendants was that Sheikh Mahbub died issueless about fifty years ago, that the plaintiff had no concern with the lands, that upon the death of Sheikh Mahbub his lands were treated as abandoned and the landlord entered into possession of the same, that thereafter the landlord settled the lands comprised in khata No. 79 with three persons, namely, Haider Mian, Zahoor Mian and Ramjan Mian, who came into possession of the lands settled with them, that by a registered sale deed dated the 15th December, 1916, Pargas Paswan, ancestor of the defendants, purchased 1 bigha 3 kathas out of plots 265 and 269 of khata No. 79 from two of the aforesaid settlees, namely, Zahoor Mian and Ramjan Mian, and that since then the defendants have been in possession throughout of the lands purchased on payment of rent. The defendants further alleged that even the plaintiffs son Syed Jan took a sale deed dated the 21st January, 1941 in respect of the remaining portion of the lands of khata No. 79 from Bibi Wakilan, widow of Haider Mian. Thus, the defendants claimed both title and possession in themselves with respect to 1 bigha 8 kathas on the basis of the sale deed dated the 15th December, 1916. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation.

4. The essential questions in controversy between the parties were: (1) whether the plaintiff was the daughter of Sheikh Mahbub, the recorded tenant, and (2) whether the plaintiffs case of possession and dispossession was true. The Courts below concurred in answering both the questions in the affirmative and decreed the suit. The defendants on appeal to this Court succeeded in obtaining a remand to the lower appellate Court for a reconsideration of the entire evidence, already on the record, with a direction that while reconsidering the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff on the question of her parentage, the provision of law as laid down in Sec. 50 of the Indian Evidence Act will be kept in view. On remand, the lower appellate Court has reached the conclusion that a scrutiny of the oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff on the question of her parentage disclosed that it fulfilled the requirements of Sec. 50, Evidence Act, and was, accordingly, admissible. In regard to Ext. 1, a rent receipt of 1359 Fasli which described the plaintiff as a daughter of Sheikh Mahbub and which was also challenged as inadmissible, the Court below has held that it was covered by both Sections 11 and 13 of the Evidence Act and was, therefore, good evidence. The Court of appeal below has found for the plaintiff on the question of her parentage on the basis of the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 and on Ext. 1 and on certain relevant circumstances. It