JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Plaintiff is appellant in a suit for partition. 2. Short case of plaintiff is that he is son of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and is accordingly, entitled to a share in the joint family property to be carved out from him. Defendants in different sets filed their written statements. Defendant No. 1 denied his marriage with defendant No. 2 and consequently to be father of plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 supported case of plaintiff as his mother. Defendant No. 4 denied relationship of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 with defendant No. 1. On death of defendant No. 4, his legal representative being substituted, filed another written statement, contesting claim of plaintiff. Other defendants remained ex parte. 3. On the pleadings, trial Court settled an issue relating to relationship of plaintiff with defendant No. 1 which is the main issue on which relief to plaintiff would be based. Since there is no dispute that plaintiff is son of defendant No. 2, marriage of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2 would lead to inference of plaintiff being son of defendant No. 1. 4. Since success of plaintiff depends on marriage of defendant No. 2 with defendant No. 1, burden lies on him to prove such marriage which being a relationship, Court has to form an opinion. For that purpose, Court is to be satisfied that requirement of Section 50 of the Evidence Act are satisfied. Opinion from conduct and reputation are good evidence to satisfy the requirements. 5. While plaintiff and defendant No. 2 assert marriage of defendant No. 2 with defendant No. 1, case of defendant No. 1 is that defendant No. 2 was wife of one Krushna Das son of Doli, first wife of Parikhita. Krushna had premature death. Defendant No. 2 had illicit relationship with one Sadhu Behera (coward boy of Parikhita) and plaintiff was born out of that illicit relationship. Parakhita drove away defendant No. 1 on account of the same. However, being prevailed over by Radha second wife of Parikhita, defendant No. 2 was brought back and was given shelter. Defendant No. 1 claims that he married Suna daughter of Naran Das and after giving birth to a daughter, Suna dead. Defendant No. 1 did not marry again. Case of plaintiff that defendant No. 1 gave education to plaintiff and met all expenses was denied. Defendant No. 1 claims that he married Suna daughter of Naran Das and after giving birth to a daughter, Suna dead. Defendant No. 1 did not marry again. Case of plaintiff that defendant No. 1 gave education to plaintiff and met all expenses was denied. Case of defendant No. 1 is that on death of Parikhita then his sons drove away defendant No. 2, she was given shelter with her son by defendant No. 1 and during his absence going out, she was looking after his house. 6. Plaintiff examined five witnesses. P.W. 1 claims to be a tenant of defendant No. 1 and on account of the same he claims to have special knowledge of relationship. Trial Court has rightly disbelieved him. Although trial Court did not disbelieve his tenancy, I find that his claim cannot be accepted. He claims to be tenant for last twenty years and has documents. No document has been produced. He has not been able to tell the plot numbers also. He does not know name of defendant No. 2. When trial Court which had opportunity to see the witness and mark his demeanour has disbelieved the witness, I am not inclined to disagree with trial Court. This evidence is of no assistance to plaintiff. 7. P.W. 2 claims to be Secretary of a Co-operative Society. He has been examined to prove some documents where plaintiff has been described as son of defendant No. 1. Previous Secretary wrote them. He is alive. No explanation is forth coming why the previous Secretary was not examined. Defendant No. 1 disputes his writings. No step has been taken to get the writings tested by expert. In such circumstances P.W. 2 is of no assistance to plaintiff. 8. P.W. 3 is plaintiff himself. His statement in cross-examination that house of defendant No. 1 has two khanjas and he remains in one khanja with his mother and defendant No. 1 remains in the other khanja supports case of defendant No. 1 that out of sympathy he gave shelter to mother and son. His description of relationship in the family also supports case of defendant No. 1 that Parikhita had a wife named Duli. Name of Krushna did not find place in plaint genealogy. 9. P.W. 3 is Headmaster of one M.E. School. He produces the school register where he claims Ext. His description of relationship in the family also supports case of defendant No. 1 that Parikhita had a wife named Duli. Name of Krushna did not find place in plaint genealogy. 9. P.W. 3 is Headmaster of one M.E. School. He produces the school register where he claims Ext. 8 to be entry of admission of plaintiff as son of defendant No. 1 in the school. He claims to be present when plaintiff took admission. That is not believable since in cross-examination he admits that his father did not accompany him. If the same is accepted, it was not necessary for defendant No. 1 to accompany plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 denies his writings in Ext. 8. No step has been taken to get the same tested by expert. Serial numbers in school register have been changed which gives rise to doubts about its correctness. 10. P.W. 5 claims to be acting as Priest of defendant No. 1 occasionally in absence of family priest and claims that in absence of defendant No. 1, defendant No. 2 performed Sradha as his wife. Trial Court has rightly disbelieved him. Mani Panda the family priest who is alive has not been examined and there is no explanation for it. 11. D.W. 2, defendant No. 2 has not been accepted by Trial Court as she is interested and on her statement many important persons who had knowledge of her marriage with defendant No. 1 have not been examined although alive and no explanation is given why they have not been examined. 12. First circumstance which is the earliest is the entries in the register of school where plaintiff took admission. In the said entry, plaintiff has been described to be son of defendant No. 1. Question is whether the entries in the school register would be accepted in the present case. Exhibit 7' is the transfer certificate dated 3.9.1970. Exhibit 10' is the entry in the admission register dated 20th July, 1948 of Pegarpara M.E. School. Ext. 10/A. is claimed to be signature of Rama Chandra Das in Ext. 10. In case Ext. 10 is not accepted, Ext. 7 would have no effect since Ext. 7 is the outcome of Ext. 10 being the transfer certificate. Ext. 10 has been produced by P.W. 4 who was working in the school since 1953 as Headmaster. Ext. 10/A. is claimed to be signature of Rama Chandra Das in Ext. 10. In case Ext. 10 is not accepted, Ext. 7 would have no effect since Ext. 7 is the outcome of Ext. 10 being the transfer certificate. Ext. 10 has been produced by P.W. 4 who was working in the school since 1953 as Headmaster. He claims to be student in that M.E. School, but he has stated that in 1946, he took admission in the school. From his evidence, in cross-examination, it is clear that he had not gone with his father accompanying him while he took admission in the school. 13. There is no other evidence to prove that Rama Chandra went with the plaintiff to the school for his admission. Rama Chandra denied his signature in the school register. No attempt has been made to prove signature otherwise. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that on the materials available. I should compare the signatures to come to conclusion that Rama Chandra had signed the same. 14. In paragraph 16 of the judgment, trial Court indicated that the circumstances are in favour of coming to the conclusion that Rama Chandra did not go to the school. When trial Court had seen the witnesses and marked their domeanours and assessment of evidence by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable, I am not inclined to interfere with such finding in appeal. Once Ext. 10 is taken out for consideration as I have started earlier, Ext. 7 also automatically becomes ineffective. Ext. 11 cannot also be accepted to prove the relationship of plaintiff with defendant No. 1. 15. Next material for consideration is the Voter list (Ext. 12/A) in respect of the plaintiff. In Ext. 12/A serial Nos. 1 and 2 indicate plaintiff to be son of Rama Chandra. No explanation is coming forward why name of Rama Chandra does not find place in the voter list. Similarly, name of defendant No. I also does not find place in the voter list. It is true that there is presumption of correctness of a voter list. This presumption, however, can be rebutted by other evidence which may be direct or circumstantial. 16. In ILR 1972 Cut. 161 (Kirtan Sahu, after him Uma Sahnani and Others v. Thakur Sahu and Others). It is true that there is presumption of correctness of a voter list. This presumption, however, can be rebutted by other evidence which may be direct or circumstantial. 16. In ILR 1972 Cut. 161 (Kirtan Sahu, after him Uma Sahnani and Others v. Thakur Sahu and Others). Full Bench of this Court held that voter's list having been prepared in due course of official business has evidentiary value. In that case, it was not considered if incomplete voter's list would have evidentiary value. Omission of name of two of the occupants in the same house as claimed by the plaintiff without any explanation coming forward is a ground not to accept the voter list on its face value though for the purpose of election the same is final and binding. 17. Entry in voters' list does not create any relationship nor does it destroy existing relationship. It is only a piece of corroborative evidence. Since Ext. 12/A is not complete in all respects I am not inclined to accept the same as a piece of evidence to come to conclusion that the plaintiff is son of defendant No. 1 in this case specially when there is no material that on instructions of defendant No. 1 this voter list was prepared. 18. Ext 12 is the voters' list of the year 1986 in which the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 and defendant No. I have been described as voters in the same house. In the said voters'list defendant No. I son of Parikhita is stated to be aged 60 years. Defendant No. 2 is indicated to be wife of defendant No. 1 aged 40 years. Plaintiff has been indicated to be son of defendant No. 1 aged 22 years. On the admitted case that the plaintiff is son of defendant No. 2 and inference could have been drawn that plaintiff is son of defendant No. 1. In this voter list Rama Chandra has been described to be son of Parikhita, whereas Rama Chandra is actually son of Bhagabat. Similarly, age difference of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is 20 years. No such case is made out in the suit. Age difference of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is only 8 years. It is not possible for a girl aged eight years to conceive a child. Similarly, age difference of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is 20 years. No such case is made out in the suit. Age difference of plaintiff and defendant No. 2 is only 8 years. It is not possible for a girl aged eight years to conceive a child. No explanation is coming forward in respect of these mistakes on the face of the voters list. 19. Therefore, entries in Ext. 12 are not correct and cannot be accepted. In case these mistakes could have been explained, I might have considered the weight of Ext. 12 which is prepared in due course of official business, Mistake in voters list can be corrected statutory. There is no explanation why mistakes in the voters list were not corrected which were allowed to continue. There are many other voters lists subsequently till the date of recording evidence. No such voters list has been produced in this case. 20. Besides, as I find from the record, these voters list being official documents were produced after recording of evidence to be marked is exhibits without prove. Certified copies were filed on 18.10.1974 after witnesses were examined On that date the judgment was delivered. 21. Letters purported to have been written by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiff are the next series of documents. These letters have been denied to be written by defendant No. 1. No endeavour have been made by the plaintiff to prove these letters to have been written by defendant No. 1. 22. Next document is loan register where defendant No. 1 is purported to state that the plaintiff would be the nominee where relationship has been described to be his son. Defendant No. 1 denied the signature in this register. There is no acceptable prove that defendant No. 1 has signed the register. Receipts arc outcome of such entry and accordingly, they cannot be relied upon. 23. Registered sale deed (Ext. 8) dated 30th January, 1951 is one of the documents to indicate that plaintiff is son of Rama Chandra. This document is coming from the custody of the plaintiff. It is unsafe to draw conclusion that plaintiff is son of defendant No. 1 basing on this document. 24. 23. Registered sale deed (Ext. 8) dated 30th January, 1951 is one of the documents to indicate that plaintiff is son of Rama Chandra. This document is coming from the custody of the plaintiff. It is unsafe to draw conclusion that plaintiff is son of defendant No. 1 basing on this document. 24. In view of the aforesaid discussions and in view of the reasons indicated by the trial Court, I agree with the trial Court that on the facts and circumstances of this case, no inference can be drawn that plaintiff is son of defendant No. 1. Once this inference is not possible to be drawn, suit for partition claiming share along with the defendant No. I cannot be sustained and the suit is to be dismissed. 25. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that defendant No. I stated that plaintiff is son of defendant No. 2 who was married to Krushna, a member of the family and accordingly, his share should be carved out as son of Krushna. This appeal has been dismissed as against defendant Nos. 8 and 9 as steps for service of notice on them was not .taken. In their absence, such question should not be decided. However, liberty is given to the plaintiff to agitate the question to carve out his share as son of Krushna a member in the joint family if the same is permissible under law. 26. In result, First Appeal is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Final Result : Dismissed