JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member. - This second appeal by Awatar plaintiff-appellant has arisen out of a suit for division of holding in which he claimed share but the learned Additional Commissioner has reversed the decree holding that the plaintiff was not the son of the deceased Sarju and the defendants' claim that Sarju had only three sons was upheld. The plaintiff had claimed to be one of the four sons of Sarju while the defendants claimed that they were the sons of Sarju from his second wife Ram Kala while the plaintiff was the son of Ram Kala from her previous husband Mahabir. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 3. Sri S.B. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Awatar is proved to be Sarju's son as shown by the Kutumb register and the voters list which were wrongly not relied upon. He further argued that the learned Additional Commissioner laid more stress on the oral evidence which could not be relied upon in the face of the documentary evidence, and that the D.Ws. were interested and were not trustworthy. He lastly argued that the finding of the learned fist appellate court was perverse on this ground. Sri S.D. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the plaintiff's case was shattered by the evidence of Ram Kala herself, the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 as she categorically stated that the plaintiff was her son from the previous husband. He further argued that the P.Ws. has no special means of knowledge to prove the relationship as required under Section 32(5) or 10 of the Indian Evidence Act. 4. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that there is no mis-reading of evidence in the judgment by the learned Additional Commissioner and there is no perversity either. In fact, all the evidence has been considered by the learned court and in view of the evidence of Ram Kala who is about 90 years old and plaintiff's own real mother, the court gave more reliance to this statement in relation to other evidence having less reliable basis. In fact, all the evidence has been considered by the learned court and in view of the evidence of Ram Kala who is about 90 years old and plaintiff's own real mother, the court gave more reliance to this statement in relation to other evidence having less reliable basis. In such case of second marriage of a woman having already small children from her first husband, it is not unusual that children brought by her to the house of the new husband would be entered with the second husband's name in the column for father's name. Therefore, the extract of Kutumb register and voter's list could not be deemed a reliable guide to parentage in these special circumstances. 5. Although the DWs Dharma and Ramrati being real sisters of the plaintiff are interested, such interestedness is no disqualification here but in reality, it is their qualification providing them special means of knowledge to prove the correct relationship. Even the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the ruling reported in A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 114 that mere relationship is no ground for rejection of evidence. It was held that in such cases the court has to exercise appropriate caution in appraisal of evidence but it was not open to the court to reject the evidence without anything more on the ground of relationship. Whether the plaintiff is the son of Sarju or not is a question of fact and the finding given by the learned first appellate court cannot be questioned or interfered in the absence of any justification for the same as required by law. 6. This second appeal is, accordingly, found to be without force and is hereby dismissed with costs.