1. This Second appeal is focussed by the defendant animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 3.10.2012 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2010 passed by the Principal District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, in O.S.No.429 of 2008, which was one for partition.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3.Compendiously and concisely the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal, would run thus:

(a) The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit seeking partition of the twelve items of the suit properties found described in the schedule of the plaint by averring that the plaintiffs, namely, Sangeetha(P1) and minor Deepa(P2)-represented by her mother Angammal, are the daughters of the defendant-Mani. The defendant is in possession and enjoyment of those suit properties which are the ancestral properties, and that they are entitled to their aliquot shares, so to say, 1/3rd share each, totally 2/3rd share in the plaint scheduled properties.

(b) W hereas the defendant filed the written statement challenging and impugning the averments in the plaint, the warp and woof of the same would run thus:

(i) There was absolutely no conjugal relationship between the said Angammal-the mother of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and the defendant.

(ii) Soon after the marriage between Mani-the defendant and Angammal, the latter refused to cohabit with the former on the ground that the defendant's father is suffering from dread skin decease. As such there had been no possibility of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 being born to the couple Mani and Angammal.

(iii) The properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant and not the ancestral properties. (iv)Ex-parte decree of divorce was obtained by the defendant as against Angammal as early as 28.6.1990 and the second plaintiff-Deepa was born on 10.4.1993 and hence even by phantasmagorical thoughts, Deepa could not be the daughter of Mani. Accordingly, the defendant would pray for the dismissal of the suit.

(c) Whereupon issues were set down by the trial Court for trial, during which, the first plaintiff and the natural guardian of the second plaintiff, namely, Angammal, examined themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A11. The defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B4.

(d) Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit, as against which, the appeal was filed for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

4. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the judgments and decrees of both the fora below the defendant filed this second appeal on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: "i. Whether the presumption of Courts below that the respondents are the daughters of the appellant is against Section 112 of the Evidence Act?

ii. Whether the Courts below are right in shifting the burden of proof on the appellant as the first respondent was born within 150 days from the date of marriage and the second respondent was born after 280 days from the date of divorce. Iii. Since, the appellant denied the knowledge whether the courts below are right in relying on the certified copies of Ex........., without calling for the original from the alleged purchaser and mortgagee.

iv. In view of the admission in the plaint that the respondent's mother lived with the appellant for a short span of time, whether the courts below are right in holding that the respondents are the daughters of the appellant on the basis of Transfer Certificates (Ex.B) and Registered deeds (Ex.8) alone.

v. Whether the courts below are right in shifting the burdens of proof on the appellant relating to panchayat held on 14.4.1987 as the first respondent was born on 6.5.1987.

vi. Since, the plaintiffs valued the suit under Section 37(2)