Documentary evidence, such as sale deeds, voter list, and notice issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, can be admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and can be used to prove the parentage of a person.

M.Y.Eqbal, J.

1. This appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.91 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in F.A. No. 325/80 (R), whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the plaintiffs-respondents has been allowed and the judgment and decree dated 28.3.80 passed by Additional Subordinate Judge II, Daltonganj, Palamau in Partition Suit No. 73/76 has been set aside.

2. The fact of the case lies in a narrow compass.

3. The original plaintiff (now deceased) namely, Janki Kahar instituted partition suit No. 73/76 for a decree of partition in respect of his share in the suit property left by his father, Rajnandan Kahar. The plaintiffs case, inter alia, was that common ancestor Rajnandan Kahar had four sons namely, Janki Kahar, Bechu Kahar, Supan Ram and Bideshi Ram. It is alleged that all of them constituted a joint Hihdu family having Ramnandan Kahar the common ancestor of the family. After the death of Ramnandan Kahar the joint family continued and the plaintiff became the Karta of the family. It was further alleged that the said properties were jointly held and possessed by all the four sons and their heirs but cultivation was carried out according to to convenience. However, subsequently the plaintiff experienced difficulty in cultivation and claimed 1/4th share in the suit property. It is, however, alleged that one of the sons namely Bechu Kahar died about 10 years ago leaving behind widow and sons, who are defendant nos. 2 and 4 to 6. Similarly Supan Ram, another son of Ramnandan Kahar died in the year 1970-71 leaving behind defendant no.3 and his only son defendant no.7. He also left behind three daughters, who are defendant nos.8 to 10.

4. The defendants-appellants filed written statement denying and disputing that the plaintiff Janki Kahar is the son of Ramnandan Kahar. It was alleged that the plaintiff is not even Kahar by caste and he has no right, title, possession or interest in any portion of the suit property. The defendants also denied and disputed the genealogical table given by the plaintiff in the plaint. The defendants case is that it is true that the plaintiff is the brother of defendant no.1 but through different father. It is stated that one Sudan Ram, Kahar by caste, was a resident of village Murmasi. He had a daughter namely Jiwasia. She was married to one Mutur Ram of the same village. Mutur Ram finding her unchastity, divorced Jiwasia Kahharin about 65 years ago. She then came back to her fathers place and started living with him. In course of time she developed intimacy with one Kali Sao of village Lesiganj. This was not approved by the elders of the village who pressed Sudan Kahar to marry Jiwasia. Accordingly Jiwasia was married to one Gopi Ram of Lakhipatra. She went to live with her new husband Gopi but she was immediately divorced as she was pregnant from before. It was further alleged that she was brought back to Murmasi by Gopi Ram and left on her father Sudan Ram. A son was later on born, who was known as Janki Ram. The defendants further case is that Ramnandan Kahar was married with one Mst. Neuri but he could have only two daughters through her. He expressed his desire to marry again, on which seniors of the village and Sudan Ram pressed him to marry Jiwasia. Accordingly Ramnandan Kahar married Jiwasia and she was brought to his house. At that time plaintiff was 10 to 12 years of age. Later on Ramnandan Kahar allowed the plaintiff Jania Kahar to live in his house and agreed to appoint him as his plough man. The defendants further case was that after this marriage with Jiwasia Ramnandan Kahar was blessed with a son Bachu Kahar through his first wife Mst. Neuri. Thereafter, two sons namely Sudan Kahar and Bideshi Kahar were born to Jiwasia through Ramnandan Kahar. The defendants, therefore, pleaded various other defences to show that plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the property and he is not the member