This is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, Manipur at Imphal reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Bishenpur. 2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows:- The plaintiff was the owner of the suit land and it js alleged that in the year 1962, he took a loan of Rs. 200/- from the defendant No. 1 by executing a note for the payment of the said loan by keeping the suit land as security. It is alleged that in the year 1969 plaintiff came to know that defendant No. 1 got his name mutated in the revenue records in respect of the suit land without his knowledge on the basis of the said note. Plaintiff thereafter approached the defendant No. 1 and requested him to allow to repay the loan to which defendant No. 1 did not agree and he claimed to be the owner of the suit land on the strength of the deed executed in the year 1962. According to the plaintiff in the year 1962 he was a minor and as such the document which appears to be a sale deed was not a valid one. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for a declaration that the said sale deed is illegal and void. Consequently, the transfer of the suit land in favour of tae defendant No. 1 is also illegal on the ground that the deed was executed during the period of minority of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also prayed for cancellation of the mutation and patta in the name of the defendant No. 1. Subsequently, another prayer was added for delivery of khas possession by evicting the defendant No. 1 who got possession of the suit land after the suit was filed. 3. The defendant No. 2 is the step-father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff died when he was aged about 3 years and his mother was remarried with defendant No. 2. After the re-marriage the plaintiff was residing with his maternal, grand-father. ; 4. Suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 who denied that at the time of execution of the sale deed dated l'tf.9 62 plaintiff was a minor. According to defendant No. 1 the plaintiff sold the suit land for a sum of Rs. After the re-marriage the plaintiff was residing with his maternal, grand-father. ; 4. Suit was contested by the defendant No. 1 who denied that at the time of execution of the sale deed dated l'tf.9 62 plaintiff was a minor. According to defendant No. 1 the plaintiff sold the suit land for a sum of Rs. 200/- by executing the sale deed with delivery of poss­ession and the name of the defendant No. 1 was duly mutated in the revenue records. It has specifically been stated that transaction was pure sell and legal and valid. 5. On pleadings as many as 8 issues were framed. 6. The crucial point to be decided in the present appeal is whether on the date of execution of the sale deed i.e. on 18.9.62 the plaintiff was a minor. The learned trial Court considering the evidence on record held that the plaintiff attained majority on that date which was reversed by the learned lower appellate Court. 7. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh has urged as the learned lower appellate Court arrived at the finding of the age of the plaintiff by (i) ignoring relevant and material evidence on record^ (ii) by not drawing inference from the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case, and (iii) refusing to draw adverse presumption against the plaintiff for non-production of best evidence, the said lading is perverse and bad in law. In support Mr. Nilamani Singh has placed reliance in the decision of the Apex Court in Damadilal and others vs. Parashram and others, AIR 1976 SC 2229 wherein it was held that it is well established that if a finding of fact is arrived at ignoring important and relevant evidence, the finding is bad in law and the High Court would be within its jurisdiction in setting aside the finding of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court on this point. This is as stated by the Apex Court is well established principle of law. Mr. Priyokumar Singh, learned course! for the respondents has urged that the evidence on record more particularly the matriculation certificate. Exhibit-A. 1 is enough to show that the finding of the learned lower appellate Court was not erroneous. 8. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh has urged that relevant portion of the evidence on record was completely ignored by the learned lower appellate Court. for the respondents has urged that the evidence on record more particularly the matriculation certificate. Exhibit-A. 1 is enough to show that the finding of the learned lower appellate Court was not erroneous. 8. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh has urged that relevant portion of the evidence on record was completely ignored by the learned lower appellate Court. la this connection he has drawn my attention to the statements of mother of the plaintiff Kabok Devi (P. W. 2), plaintiff's (P.W.3) own evidence, evidence of Konsam Dwijamani Singh (P. W.4) who was the clerk of Nambol High School and he proved the certificate issued by the Headmaster, Exhibit- A. Sand also evidence of P. W. 5, husband of plaintiff's aunt. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that evidence of these witnesses were not considered by the learned lower appellate Court. He ignored discrepancies of the evidence of P. W. 2 on the ground that she is a village rustic lady. 10. Mother of the plaintiff is the best person to say about the age of her son, namely, the plaintiff. On perusal of her statement both in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, I find that according to her, the father of the plaintiff died when plaintiff was 3 years old and after three years of death, she married defendant No. 2 and since her re-marriage, plaintiff has been residing with her father. According to her she was 25 years old when the plaintiff was born and her late husband got the horoscope of the plaintiff prepared by one Chongtham Kaomacha Singh soon after his birth She was recalled for cross-examination on 11.7.72 and she stated that she remarried defendant No. 2 when she was aged about 28 years and it was about 28 years ago. From her evidence as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, it follows that plaintiff was born not later than 1938 and in 1962 he was aged 24 years. This important fact was also not taken into consideration by the learned lower appellate Court. According to plaintiff he came to know the date of his birth from his step-father, defendant No. 2 but defendant No. 2 has not been examined. He has also admitted about the horoscope. This important fact was also not taken into consideration by the learned lower appellate Court. According to plaintiff he came to know the date of his birth from his step-father, defendant No. 2 but defendant No. 2 has not been examined. He has also admitted about the horoscope. P.W. 4 who proved the certificate issued by the Headmaster, exhibit-A. 5 admitted that in the admission register no date of birth was given and only age was recorded as 7 years. He has further stated that age is recorded in the school register as given by the guardian and is not verified either from horoscope or other authentic record. As the Headmaster who issued the certificate, Exhibit - A. 5 was not examined the contents of the document on which reliance was placed by the learned trial Court is not admissible and as such the learned lower appellate Court erred in law in taking this piece of evidence. Even the school register was not produced. In any event the school was a private school, the said register will not come within the purview of section 35 of the Evidence Act. That apart, the entries recorded in the said school register is on the basis of the guardian and in absence of evidence of the guardian, the said entries being secondary evidence are unreliable and also inherently lacking authenticity and credibility. 11. Exhibit - A. 5 has not been properly proved by examining the Headmaster who issued the certificate. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Ram Marti vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1020, Lalta Prasad vs. State of M.P., (1979) 4 SCC 193 , Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and others, AIR 1965 SC 282 and State of Bihar vs. Radha Krishna Singh and others, (1983) 3 SCC 118 , I hold that Exhibit - A.5 and register of the private school are not admissible in evidence as stated earlier as these are documents maintained by a private institution and not by any public functionary. That apart contents of Exhibit - A. 5 has not been proved by the Headmaster. Moreover, the entry regarding the age of the plaintiff in the school register was made by a person on the basis of information given by the guardian and as the guardian has not been examined, no reliance can be placed in the said entries. That apart contents of Exhibit - A. 5 has not been proved by the Headmaster. Moreover, the entry regarding the age of the plaintiff in the school register was made by a person on the basis of information given by the guardian and as the guardian has not been examined, no reliance can be placed in the said entries. 12. Learned counsel for, the respondent has placed reliance on a decision of the An Ihra Pradesh High Court in Ajjarapu Sabbarao vs. Pulla Venkata Rama Rao, AIR 1964 Andhra Pradesh 53. In support of his contention that both the certificate (Exhibit- A 5) and the school register would come under section 35 of the Evidence Act. On perusal of the said report, it appears that the documents were accepted t j be covered by said section 35 as these documents were issued by a school maintained by the Municipality and not by a private organization. Therefore, the ratio is not applicable to in the case in hand. 13. Regarding matriculation certificate, Exhibit - A.I on the basis of which learned lower appellate Court came to the finding regarding age of the plaintiff. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh has drawn my attention to Brij Mohan (supra) and in para 20 their Lordships observed that in actual life it often happens that persons give false age of the boy at the time of his admission to a school so that later in life he would have an advantage when seeking public service for which a minimum age for eligibility is often prescribed, and the Court of facts cannot ignore this fact while assessing the value of the entry and it would be improper for the Court to base any conclusion on the basis of the entry, when it is alleged that entry was made upon false information supplied with the above motive. In view of the observation of the Apex Court one can safely come to the conclusion that matriculation certificate normally discloses a lower age. Putting full reliance on the said certificate the learned lower appellate Court erred in law. 14. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that immediately after his birth his horoscope was prepared, but the said horoscope was not produced. The maker of the horoscope, namely, Chongtham Kaomacha Singh and the grand-father of the plaintiff were also not examined. Putting full reliance on the said certificate the learned lower appellate Court erred in law. 14. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that immediately after his birth his horoscope was prepared, but the said horoscope was not produced. The maker of the horoscope, namely, Chongtham Kaomacha Singh and the grand-father of the plaintiff were also not examined. It is not clear whether at the time of recording evidence the above persons were alive, but it was the duty of the plaintiff either to examine these two persons or to give an explanation for their non examination. Regarding horoscope the learned lower appellate Court has made an observation that "there is nothing on record to show that the horoscope is still in the possession of the plaintiff." The horoscope is the best evidence to prove the age of the plaintiff In Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and others, AIR 1968 SC 1418, it was held that a party in possession of best evidence which would throw light on the issue in controversy, if such evidence is withheld the Court ought to draw an adverse inference against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him. In the case in hand the assumption of the learned lower appellate Court that there is nothing on record to show regarding possession of horoscope by the plaintiff is erroneous. If the horoscope was not in his possession or the maker of the horoscope was not available for examination, it was boundant duty of the plaintiff to prove these facts. Failure is fatal. I, therefore, hold that the impugned judgment is bad in law as the learned lower appellate Court refused to draw adverse presumption against the plaintiff for non-production of best evidence. 15. Mr. A. Nilamani Singh has urged that suit is barred by limitation as it was not filed after 3 years of attaining majority of the plaintiff as envisaged under section 8 of the Limitation Act. According to learned counsel as (he present suit is for cancellation of the sale deed and revenue records, it is covered by Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, and the period of limitation under (he said Articles is. three years . According to learned counsel as (he present suit is for cancellation of the sale deed and revenue records, it is covered by Articles 58 and 59 of the Limitation Act, and the period of limitation under (he said Articles is. three years . On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the present suit is covered by Article 64 of the Limitation Act as the plaintiff subsequently prayed for recovery of possession on the ground that he was dispossessed while in possession of the land. The present suit was. filed on 1 .5.69 and the sale deed in question was executed in the year 1962 ; plaintiff was dispossessed after filing of the suit. In Abdul Waheed Khan vs. Bhawaoi and others, AIR 1966 SC 1718 , it was held that though the suit was originally for declaration of title of the suit property, but subsequently prayer for delivery of possession was also made and as such Article 142 of the Limitation Act (old) would be attracted. The corresponding Article is 64 under the Limitation Act, 1963 and the period of limitation is 12 years. The suit has been filed within the aforesaid period of 12 years and I, therefore, hold that it is not barred by limitation. 16. Last submission of Mr. A. Nilamani Singh is that plaintiff is an educated person and shifted to Imphal, whereas defendant No. 1 is an un-educated, unsophisticated and ignorant villager and as such equity is in favour of the defendants. I need not enter into this aspect of the matter in view of my findings stated above. 17. From what has been stated above, I find considerable force in the present appeal and I, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court and restore the decree of the learned trial Court, In the result, the appeal is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.