Arindam Sinha, J.

The appellant/plaintiff since deceased had filed a suit for partition and accounts against the defendant no.1. He alleged that one Sk. Gaffar alias Sk. Gafur was the father of the defendant no.1 and himself. Khairan Bibi was their mother. The property being holding no. 40, Hara Charan Mukherjee Lane, P.S Howrah, belonged to their parents. Sk. Gaffar died on 10th January, 1967 leaving him surviving his wife Khairan Bibi, his sons Md. Mansur, the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 as his heirs who inherited the suit property. Khairan Bibi died on 21st February, 1981. According to the plaintiff the said property came to be inherited equally by the defendant no.1 and himself since their said elder brother Md. Mansur had died in the year 1986 without leaving any issue, his wife having pre-deceased him. Hence the suit wherein the said property is the subject matter.

The defendant no.1 resisted the claim of the plaintiff on the allegation that the plaintiff was not his brother. According to the defendant no.1 the plaintiff was the son of one Peer Md. and not of his parents Sk. Gafur and Khairan Bibi. The defendant no.1 alleged that his father the said Sk. Gafur had two sons, Md. Mansur and himself as well as two daughters Amina Khatun and Sahidun Bibi who together inherited the suit property. The defendant no.1 however did not dispute that Md. Mansur had died issueless. It appears that thereafter the plaintiff caused amendment to his plaint by, inter alia, adding the defendant nos. 2, 3 and 4 being respectively the two sisters and the son of Md. Mansur which was not disputed by the defendant no.1 in his additional written statement filed thereafter.

On those pleadings issues were framed by the Ld. Trial Court of which issue no.3 was –

“Is the plaintiff son of Sk. Gaffar alias Gafur and Khairan Bibi?”

The Ld. Court below took up for adjudication, inter alia, issue no.3, found in favour of the plaintiff and passed a preliminary decree on contest against the defendant no.1 and exparte against defendant nos.2 to 4. It was declared that the plaintiff and the defendant nos.2 to 4 each have ¼th share in the A schedule property and the defendant no.1 has half share therein. Against this the defendant no.1 has come up in first appeal.

The short question which arises is whether or not the plaintiff is the son of Sk. Gaffar/Gafur and therefore entitled to a share in the suit property. Mr. Bidyut Banerjee, Learned Senior Advocate has relied upon exhibit-A being a certificate dated 16th August, 1984 issued by the Chief Personal Manager of Remington Rand Ltd. The said certificate was tendered through the plaintiff in cross-examination, on admission. The certificate is to the effect that, inter alia, the plaintiff is the son of Peer Md. The specimen signature of the plaintiff appears in the certificate. The plaintiff in such cross-examination had thereafter deposed that he had not made any untrue statement during the joining of his service as employee of Remington Rand. Mr. Banerjee submitted that the above documentary and oral evidence is the best evidence. The document was duly tendered and as such the existence and contents thereof stood proved. The document contains the admission of the plaintiff of the assertion made by his client that the plaintiff is the son of Peer Md. The admission was not explained and, therefore, any other contrary evidence sought to be produced by the plaintiff cannot be relied upon.

Mr. Banerjee cited the decisions reported in AIR 1972 Supreme Court 608 (P.C. Purushothama Reddiar Vs. S. Perumal); (2003) 8 Supreme Court Cases 752 (R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Vs. Arulmigu Viswesara Swami & V.P. Temple); and (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 452 (Kapil Corepacks (P) Ltd. Vs. Harbans Lal). Relying on the above authorities Mr. Banerjee submitted that the admissibility of a document was not open to challenge when the document had been tendered properly. A document duly tendered on admission was pro