Certified extract from Registrar of Baptism admissible in evidence.

Defendants 3 and 5 are the appellants in this second appeal which arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs one-eighth share in Door No.31, Kutty Street, Nungambakkam, Madras-34. Though there was some dispute as to whether the property originally belonged to one Samuel, the grand-father of defendants 3 to 5, the matter is beyond challenge at this stage before me. The lower appellate Court has held that the property belonged to Samuel originally and nothing has been shown to me to disturb that finding. This Samuel admittedly had five sons and a daughter. The following genealogical tree will help an easy understanding of the relationship. This genealogical tree is found in the plaint. In the written statement, it is alleged by defendants 3 to 5 that their father had three more daughters by names Gnanambal, Regina and Gladis. In fact, Gnanambal has been examined as D.W.I in this case.

2. The plaintiff claimed that he was the son of Benjamin and that the first defendant was his sister. Defendants 3 to 5 who are the contesting parties are admittedly the children of John, a brother of Benjamin. The status of the second defendant, as the grand-son of Murugesan, is disputed by defendants 3 to 5. Similarly, they dispute the status of the sixth defendant as the son of Arokiasamy. According to the plaintiff his father Benjamin had-one-fourth share in the suit property and on his death, it had devolved on the plaintifff and the first defendant.

3. Defendants 3 to 5 resisted the suit contending that Benjamin had no issue and that the property belonged to themselves and their three sisters.

4. The trial Court, accepting the contention of defendants 3 to 5, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, reversed the decision of the trial court and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for by him.

5. In this second appeal, Mr.S.Balasub-ramanian, learned Counsel for appellants, raises the following points:

(i) The lower appellate Court is in error in relying upon Exs.A-3 and A-4, overlooking the discrepancies between them with regard to the date of birth as Well as the name of the party concerned.

(ii) The lower appellate Court has failed to note that Ex.A-4 is inadmissible in evidence inasmuch as the Register of Baptism kept in a Church is not a public document and it could not be proved by merely producing the certified extract. In other words, Ex.A-4 is inadmissible in evidence.

(iii) The burden is on the plaintiff to prove his relationship as the son of Benjamin and inasmuch as he has not examined any family member in his support, no Court can hold that his case has been proved. In this connection, reliance is placed upon section 50 of the Evidence Act.

(iv) The significant circumstance that the plaintiff as well as P.W.3 Arokia-nathan did not make any claim to the property till the date of suit, after the death of Murugesan and Benjamin, has been overlooked by the lower appellate Court.

(v) The names of defendants 3 to 5 were included in the house tax demand register, even during the lifetime of Benjamin, and this was a clinching circumstance to prove that the plaintiff or Arokianathan had no right to the property and this was again not considered by the lower appellate Court.

6. On the strength of the above said points, learned Counsel for the appellants concludes that the lower appellate court was wrong in reversing the well considered judgment of the trial Court. He refers to the decisions in Nagayasaai Naidu v. Kochadai Naidu, (1970)1 M.L.J. 105= I.L.R. (1969)1 Mad.459= 81 L.W.436= A.I.R.1969 Mad.329; C.Govardhana Reddy v. Election Tribunal, A.I.R.1970 A.P.56= (1969)1 An.W.R, 52= I.L.R. (1968) A.P.513 (F.B.); Shiv Ram v. Shiv Charan Singh, A.I.R.1964 Rajasthan 126= I.L.R. (1964) Rajasthan 26 and Maha-deva Rao v. Yasoda Bat, (1962)2 M.L.J. 107= (1962) M.L.J. (Cr1.) 427= 75 L.W.17= A.I.R. 1962 Mad.141 in support of his contentions. I