JUDGMENT - B.N. DESHMUKH, J.:---This second appeal is filed by the original plaintiff who filed a suit for partition of the House No. 1223 of Cantonment, Aurangabad. The case of the plaintiff is that A. Remaswami Naidu s/o Narayanswami is father of the plaintiff and defendant. The father of the plaintiff and defendant died on 15-9-1965. Thus, according to plaintiff, she is entitled for half the share as heir of A. Ramaswami Naidu. The property is under the joint enjoyment of the parties. The plaintiff demanded partition but defendant refused the same. That is why this present suit is filed by the plaintiff. 2. The defendant admitted that A. Ramaswami Naidu was the father of the defendant but denied that plaintiff is the daughter of said Ramaswami Naidu and as such she is not entitled for any share in the property. 3. It be noted at this stage that one suit was filed by the defendant against Nagbhushanam which was allowed finally in favour of the defendant. In that suit, the plaintiff had preferred an application for adding her as a party to that suit. That application was made on 1-7-1966 and the learned Judge passed on order rejecting the said application on 24-10-1966. While rejecting the application of the present plaintiff in the earlier suit, the learned Judge had found that the plaintiff is neither necessary not proper party. It was further observed that the decision in that suit will not affect the rights of the present plaintiff. The application of the plaintiff for adding party in RCS 46 of 1966 is at Exhibit 15. 4. The learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff-Gangubai had established that she is the daughter of A. Ramaswami Naidu. It seems that the question of res-judicata was not pressed before the trial Judge. The learned Joint Civil Judge, therefore, declared that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit house and an order for preparation of the preliminary decree came to be passed. The defendant went in appeal before the District Court at Aurangabad. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, who heard the appeal, held that the suit is barred by res judicata and also that the plaintiff-Gangubai is not the daughter of A. Ramaswami. In accordance with the finding recorded by him, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed. The decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, who heard the appeal, held that the suit is barred by res judicata and also that the plaintiff-Gangubai is not the daughter of A. Ramaswami. In accordance with the finding recorded by him, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed. The decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. 5. The learned Counsel Shri Bora, appearing for the appellant, contended that the findings recorded by the lower Appellate Court while allowing the appeal of defendant are perversed. He also submitted that the entire evidence which was produced is not property appreciated while deciding the appeal. He further contended that the finding regarding res judicata is absolutely untenable. 6. The lower Appellate Court had held that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata on a very strange ground. The earlier suit R.C.S. No. 46 of 1966 was filled by the present defendant against one Nagbhushanam to which the present plaintiff was not at all party. She had made an application for adding her party vide Exhibit 15 in that suit. Her application was rejected by the learned Judge on the ground that she is not necessary and proper party to that suit. Not only that but it was also observed in the order of rejection that the decision and decree will not bind the present plaintiff at all. In these circumstances, it is very strange as to how the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, who heard the appeal, came to the conclusion that the present suit of the plaintiff is barred by res judicata. What is considered by the lower Appellate Court is that the order of rejection of the application came to be passed after recording the evidence of the plaintiff. After examining her in that suit, that Court held that she is not daughter of A. Ramaswami and cannot be held to be necessary party. As mentioned earlier, I have seen the order at Exhibit 15, if does not mention anywhere as to whether the present plaintiff is daughter of Ramaswami Naidu or not. There is no such finding recorded in the order passed by the learned Judge while rejecting the application. I have enquired form the learned Counsel Shri Gulam Mustafa, who appears for the original defendant-respondent, as to whether there is any other order passed on the application of the present plaintiff for adding party. There is no such finding recorded in the order passed by the learned Judge while rejecting the application. I have enquired form the learned Counsel Shri Gulam Mustafa, who appears for the original defendant-respondent, as to whether there is any other order passed on the application of the present plaintiff for adding party. He could not point out to any other order than which was passed on 24-10-1966. The sum and substance of the order is already considered by me. Moreover, the learned Extra Assistant Judge has failed to consider that the point of res judicata was not rightly pressed in the trial Court because rejection of an application for adding party to a suit can never operate as res judicata in any subsequent suit filed by that party. 7. The learned Counsel Shri Bora invited my attention to the copies of Exhibits 56 and 57 and the evidence of witness Mrs. Riyasatali at Exhibit 45. The plaintiff Gangubai was admitted in the school in 4th Std. Marathi and Urdu in Government Girls High School, Aurangabad. These documents at Exhibits 55 to 57 which is a school record show that the name of the father of the plaintiff was entered in the school record as A. Ramaswami Naidu. The documents are more than 30 years old. They are dated 17 Forward 1354 F (about 1944 A.D.) and 15 Sheherawar 1348 F (about 1938 A.D.). The original documents are produced through the witness Mrs. Riyasatali who is the Clerk of Government Girls High School, Aurangabad. The whole file of admission and register of attendance was produced before the trial Judge who verified the original documents. This important and vital piece of evidence is not at all considered by the lower Appellate Court while deciding the paternity of the plaintiff-Gangubai. I have gone through the entire judgment of the lower Appellate Court. I have considered the reasons recorded and I find that even though the question of paternity of plaintiff was involved which affects her status, the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, had proceeded in a casual manner to decide the issue of paternity of the plaintiff. I have gone through the entire judgment of the lower Appellate Court. I have considered the reasons recorded and I find that even though the question of paternity of plaintiff was involved which affects her status, the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Aurangabad, had proceeded in a casual manner to decide the issue of paternity of the plaintiff. While considering the oral evidence on behalf of the plaintiff., the oral evidence is considered on the basis that none of them has seen or witnessed the marriage of mother of plaintiff i.e. Parubai with A. Ramaswami Naidu nor the close relations of Ramaswami Naidu or Parubai are examined by the plaintiff to establish the marriage between Parubai and Ramaswami Naidu. The most important documentary evidence in favour of the plaintiff is just brushed aside without considering it. In my view, the school record is very old. The record is maintained when the plaintiff was studying in 4th Std. The school record is, therefore, prepared and maintained when the plaintiff was minor and could not be age of maturity or understanding. There is no reason why such old record should not be considered and preferred. The entries in the school record undoubtedly raise a presumption in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant has not led any evidence in rebuttal. I do not see any reason to discard the old record which is maintained by the school in its day-to-day administration. There is no circumstance which can create any doubt regarding the maintenance of the record by the school. Instead of considering this school record, the lower Appellate Court proceeded to consider some letters which were claimed to have been written by Ramaswami to school and came to the conclusion that the handwriting and signature of Ramaswami is not conclusive. The lower Appellate Court has failed to appreciate that there was no reason when at the time of admission of plaintiff in the school in the year 1348 F i.e. 1938 A.D. why the name of A. Ramaswami Naidu was recorded as the father of the plaintiff. Unless the plaintiff was the daughter of A. Ramaswami Naidu, such an entry could not have been taken in the school record. Moreover, there is no explanation coming forward from the defendant regarding entry in the school register. Unless the plaintiff was the daughter of A. Ramaswami Naidu, such an entry could not have been taken in the school record. Moreover, there is no explanation coming forward from the defendant regarding entry in the school register. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is the daughter of A. Ramaswami Naidu and she is entitled to succeed to the property of A. Ramaswami Naidu after his death in the year 1965. 8. The learned Counsel Shri Gulam Mustafa, appearing for the respondent, submitted that finding of facts should not be disturbed in second appeal by re-appreciating the evidence. It is true usually it is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence once the fact finding Court after consideration of the entire evidence recorded its finding but as already stated, the material documentary evidence was not considered by the lower Appellate Court. Not only that but finding on both the issues on the question of paternity of plaintiff-Gangubai and on the point of res-judicata also, the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Judge required consideration of evidence and also re-appreciation on the entire evidence in this second appeal. The learned Counsel Shri Gulam Mustafa further submitted that as the issue regarding paternity was not considered in this light, the matter should be remanded back for giving opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence. I do not find it necessary in view of the old school record, which was produced by the plaintiff; to remand the matter and to delay the proceedings any further. I, therefore, hold that the plaintiff is entitled to be declared owner to the extent of half share in the Suit House No. 1223 of Cantonment, Aurangabad. 9. In this second appeal, Civil Application No. 1277 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiff for staying the execution of decree passed in the earlier suit being R.C.S. No. 46 of 1966. The Darkhast for execution being R.D.No. 105 of 1982 was ordered to be stayed. I am told that the operation of stay order still continues. The stay granted by this Court in that civil application stands vacated. The defendant will be entitled to execute decree out of which the execution proceedings are pending to the extent of his share only. 10. In the result, I set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The stay granted by this Court in that civil application stands vacated. The defendant will be entitled to execute decree out of which the execution proceedings are pending to the extent of his share only. 10. In the result, I set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and restore the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The appeal, therefore, is allowed with costs. Appeal allowed. -----