P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

1. Defendants 1 to 10 and 12 in a suit for partition are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The property sought to be partitioned belonged to one Velu. Velu died in the year 1978. According to the plaintiff, he is the son of Velu and on the death of Velu, the suit property devolved on him and Madhavan, another son of Velu, being the surviving legal representatives of Velu. Defendants 1 to 10 are the successors of Madhavan. The plaintiff claimed partition of his one half right over the suit property. The defendants contended that the plaintiff is not the son of Velu and as such, he is not entitled to any share in the suit property. Alternatively, the defendants also contended that if at all the plaintiff has any right over the suit property, the same is lost by adverse possession. The Trial Court rejected the case of the defendants and decreed the suit. The Appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the evidence, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The defendants referred to above, who are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions of the courts below have thus come up in this Second Appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants.

3. The learned counsel for the defendants has not challenged the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below against the defendants on the plea of adverse possession raised by them. The challenge, on the other hand, was against the finding on the issue as to the paternity of the plaintiff. One of the documents relied on by the courts below to hold that the plaintiff is the son of Velu is Ext. A6 extract of his school admission register. According to the learned counsel, the school admission register being a public document, in the light of the provisions contained in S. 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, only a certified copy of the same can be produced to prove the contents of the same. It was contended by the learned counsel for the defendants that Ext. A6 is not a certified copy of the original, but only an extract of the original and hence, the same cannot be pressed into service to prove the contents of the original.

4. At the outset, I must state that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants does not arise for consideration in this case as one of the defendants who gave evidence on behalf of the defendants as DW 1 in the suit has admitted that the defendants have no dispute as to the contents of Ext. A6 school admission register. The relevant portion of the deposition of DW 1 reads thus:

In other words, the defendants admit the fact that in the school admission register of the plaintiff, the name of his father is shown as Velu and their contention is only that the said entry in the school admission register of the plaintiff is incorrect. When the defendants admit the contents of the school admission register of the plaintiff, the contention raised as to the admissibility of Ext. A6 document, according to me, does not arise.

5. Even assuming that the defendants do not admit the contents of the school admission register of the plaintiff, I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the defendants. Ext. A6 extract of the school admission register of the plaintiff has been proved through PW 2, the Headmistress of the Government L.P. School, Parapukkara. PW 2 has categorically stated that Ext. A6 is the extract of the school admission register of the plaintiff prepared and issued by her. In other words, PW 2 is a person who has seen the original of the school admission register of the plaintiff and who maintains the stand that Ext. A6 is a true extract of the original. She has also stated that the relevant page of the admission register is now lost. It is seen that the original of the school admission register was though produced by PW 2 before the Court, it was found that the relevant page of the original of the school admission register was completely destroyed. An endorsement to that effect is seen