The plaintiffs in a suit for partition are the appellants.

2. The properties sought to be partitioned belonged to the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, namely, Krishnan Nair and his mother Kunjukutty Amma. The properties owned the by Krishnan Nair and Kunjukutty Amma were partitioned between them as per Ext.A1 partition deed in the year 1952. The properties included in the C-schedule to Ext.A1 partition deed were allotted to Kunjukutty Amma, her daughter Kalyani Amma and her daughter, the defendant. Krishnan Nair died thereafter. Kunjukutty Amma also died later. According to the plaintiffs, Kunjukutty Amma died on 25.12.1957, after the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act and as such, on her death, her one half share over the properties included in the C schedule to Ext.A1 partition deed devolved on them as the legal representatives of her pre-deceased son Krishnan Nair and the suit is for partition of the said one half share over the said properties. The defendant resisted the suit, contending, among others, that Kunjukutty Amma died prior to the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act, in the year 1955 itself and that therefore, the plaintiffs have not acquired any right in the suit properties on her death. The trial court non-suited the plaintiffs holding that the plaintiffs have not established their case that Kunjukutty Amma died after introduction of the Hindu Succession Act as claimed by them. Though the matter was taken up in appeal, the appellate court, on a reappraisal of the materials on record, confirmed the decision of the trial court. The plaintiffs, who are aggrieved by the concurrent decisions against them have thus come up in this second appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as also the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The short point arising for consideration is as to whether the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their case that Kunjukutty Amma died after the introduction of the Hindu Succession Act. In order to establish the death of Kunjukutty Amma, the plaintiffs have relied on Ext.A2 death certificate issued to them from the Kaipamangalam Grama Panchayat on 1.11.2008. It is certified in Ext.A2 that Kunjukutty Amma died on 25.12.1957. Section 13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 provides that any death which has not been registered within one year of its occurrence, shall be registered only on an order made by a Magistrate of the First Class or a Presidency Magistrate after verifying the correctness of the death. It is seen that about 50 years after the death of Kunjukutty Amma, on 28.8.2008, the third plaintiff has applied before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur seeking orders directing the concerned Registrar of Births and Deaths to register the death of Kunjukutty Amma and on the basis of the said application, Ext.A7 order was issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thrissur on 26.9.2008, directing the Kaipamangalam Grama Panchayat to register the death of Kunjukutty Amma. It is conceded that the death of Kunjukutty Amma has been registered only thereafter and Ext.A2 death certificate has been issued based on the said registration. Ext.B3 is a document executed in the family of Kunjukutty Amma on 7.2.1956, wherein, there is a recital to the effect that Kunjukutty Amma is no more. In the light of Ext.B3, the courts below took the view that the entry in the register of births and deaths maintained by the local authority is not a conclusive proof as to the correctness of the date of death entered in the register and consequently rejected the case set up by the plaintiffs based on Ext.A2 death certificate.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants, relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Rajindra Kumar v. Shri Chandra Narain Singh and others [(1970)2 SCC 277] and Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 361), contended that an entry made by the Registrar of Births and Deaths in the register maintained by him