M. M. MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellants who were the plaintiffs in the trial court against the judgment and decree dated 18-10-1982 passed by the principal district judge, belgaum, in r. a. No. 19 of 1981 allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1981 passed by the principal civil judge. Belgaum, in o. s. No. 28 of 1968. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) THE plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/5 share in the suit schedule properties referred to in schedule-a for partitioning by metes and bounds on the averments that one gousmia who was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and the defendants and owner of those properties died leaving behind him khanjabi, imamsaheb and khadarsaheb. The plaintiffs are the sons of khadarsaheb whereas the defendants are the heirs of imamsaheb. The case of the plaintiffs is that on the death of gousmia, imamsaheb got 2/5 shares, khadarsaheb got 2/5 share and khanjabi got 1/5 share and imamsaheb died on 11-12-1965 leaving behind his widow maktumbi the 13th defendant and other sons and that during the lifetime of imamsaheb he was looking after the property and also looking after the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are in possession of r. s. No. 22 and the rest of the lands are in possession of the tenants and that since defendants-1 to 14 are not heeding to the demands of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their share, they have filed this suit. Defendant-15 remained ex parte, defendants-1 to 14 filed a common written statement denying that the plaintiffs are the children of khadarsaheb and khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia. According to the contention of the defendants, deceased imamsaheb got most of the properties from his deceased mother aminabi under a will executed by her and he was the sole owner in exclusive possession of these properties and these are the watan properties and they have been regranted to imamsaheb and on the basis of these contentions, amongst others, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The trial court decreed the suit of the appellants. The trial court decreed the suit of the appellants. The lower appellate court, in appeal by the defendants, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit of the appellants. Hence this appeal. ( 4 ) THE substantial questions of law that are raised for consideration in this case are as follows:" (1) whether the first appellate court was justified in interpreting exhibit d-9 the death extract of gousmia? (2) whether the first appellate court was justified in the circumstances in holding that khadirsab was not the son of gousmia?"re: question 1 ( 5 ) EXHIBIT d-9 purports to be the death extract of gousmia, father of imamsaheb. But the appellants have contended that exhibit d-9 does not refer to gousmia, the husband of aminabi. The trial court, on the basis of exhibits p-l and d-13, has held that exhibit d-9 does not refer to gousmia. But it refers to some other gouse imamsaheb buzruq. The evidence on record discloses that gousmia was the husband of aminabi who was admittedly the mother of imamsaheb and it is also not disputed that he was a resident of ramapur and he died at rampur. D. W. 1 has given evidence wherein he has referred to exhibit d-9 as the death extract of aminabi's husband gousmia, son of imamuddin. In the cross-examination of defendant-1 who refers to exhibit d-9 as the death extract of gousmia, son of imamuddin and the husband of aminabi, the plaintiffs have not challenged this aspect of defendant-1's evidence. The plaintiffs have not produced any extract in reply to exhibit d-9 as the death extract of gousmia. The reason for the plaintiffs challenging exhibit d-9 as not being the death extract of gousmia is that the name of the deceased mentioned in exhibit d-9 is as follows: "gouse iman buruq". The difference in the name mentioned in exhibits p-l and d-13 and exhibit d-9 is that there is a mention of the word "buruq". Exhibit d-9 is a certified extract and the evidence of D. W. 1 discloses that it refers to the death extract of gousmia, husband of aminabi. The word buruq, according to the lower appellate court is an expression in urdu referring to a respectable person. Buruq literally means elder and this expression is used refer to a person who is elder and respected by his people. The word buruq, according to the lower appellate court is an expression in urdu referring to a respectable person. Buruq literally means elder and this expression is used refer to a person who is elder and respected by his people. Buruq itself is not a proper name. But it is only a term meaning elderly. Since gousmia was a patel of that village, it is not surprising if out of respect this word "buruq" is used after his name in exhibit d-9. The lower appellate court's interpretation of exhibit d-9 as the death extract of gousmia is not perverse or wrong. Question No. 1 is answered accordingly. Re: question No. 2 ( 6 ) IT is the case of the appellants that they are the sons of khadar saheb and khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia. So the contesting defendants also disputed that the plaintiffs are the sons of khadarsaheb. But, the lower appellate court and the trial court, on the basis of the evidence on record, have held that the plaintiffs have proved that they are the sons of khadarsaheb. This finding of fact recorded by both the courts below is based on the evidence. Further the case of the appellants is that this khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia and the properties in the case belonged to gousmia and he died leaving behind his sons imamsaheb, khadarsaheb and one daughter khanjabi defendant-15. It is not in dispute that imamsaheb is the son of gousmia. It is also not in dispute that aminabi was the wife of gousmia. It is also not in dispute that imamsaheb was born to aminabi through gousmia. The question before the courts below was whether defendant-15 and the appellants were children of gousmia as claimed by them. The contesting defendants have contended that gousmia had no other children excpet imamsaheb. At one stage in the proceedings the plaintiffs have amended the plaint wherein they have mentioned that the suit schedule property belongs to aminabi and they are claiming their right from aminabi. Whether they are claiming their right through gousmia or aminabi, the burden is on them to prove that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia and aminabi and for that purpose they are relying on exhibit p-2 and p-3. Whether they are claiming their right through gousmia or aminabi, the burden is on them to prove that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia and aminabi and for that purpose they are relying on exhibit p-2 and p-3. Exhibit p-3 was pressed into service by the appellants as the death extract of khanjabi, on the face of it, exhibit p-3 cannot be relied upon because it is not a certified extract and it does not bear the seal of any authority nor does it go to show that it is a certified true copy. Therefore, the lower appellate court was justified in excluding it from consideration. Exhibit p-3 cannot be taken to establish that khanjabi was the daughter of aminabi. If this document exhibit p-3 is excluded from consideration, what remains is the evidence of the appellants and exhibit p-2. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants relied on Maniklal Shah v. Hiralal Shaw, wherein the calcutta High Court has held as follows:"the register of deaths maintained by the sub-registrar under chap. 31, calcutta Municipal Act, 1923, is admissible in evidence under Section 35, evidence Act, and any entry in such a register can be proved under Section 77 by the production of a certified copy thereof. The entry in such a register is evidence of the fact of death. Other particulars such as 'the cause of death', 'the deceased's age' etc. , as to which the officer concerned can have no personal knowledge or any means of checking, cannot be treated as evidence. " ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also Relied on Paryani Bai v. Bajirao, wherein it has been held by the Bombay High Court that the entries in the birth register are admissible in evidence. But the Bombay High Court has also held that it has to be proved that the entry relates to the birth of the person concerned. Connection of the identity of the person under the entry must be established by other evidence. But the Bombay High Court has also held that it has to be proved that the entry relates to the birth of the person concerned. Connection of the identity of the person under the entry must be established by other evidence. ( 9 ) ANOTHER ruling relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is Smt. Vanajakshamma and others v. P. Gopala Krishna, wherein this court has held that the register of births maintained by the municipality is a public document and the certified copy of extract is admissible under sections 74 and 77 of the Indian evidence ACT to prove the contents of such public document. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants also relied on Bishwa Nath Gosain v. Dulhin Lalmuni and Others, wherein the patna High Court has held as follows:"the entries in birth and death register are public documents and are admissible under Section 35 of the evidence ACT and it is not necessary to prove who made the entries and what was the source of his information. The register being a public document, presumption of correctness attaches to it and heavy onus lies on the party who wants to dispute the presumption. " ( 11 ) AS against this, the learned counsel for the respondent relied on State Government Madhya Pradesh v. Kamruddin Imamoddin, wherein the Nagpur High Court has held as follows:" (D) a mere entry in a birth and death register to the effect that a child was born to a person without any statement as to the identity of the child is not sufficient to prove the birth of a particular person. The identity of that person has to be fully established by other evidence. " ( 12 ) HE also relied on Thimmakku and others v. Bandlurangappa and others, wherein this court has held as follows:"in the absence of the examination of and testimony by some witness competent to speak to matters either as to the knowledge of the relationship or as to the source of the information or statements on which the recitals came to be incorporated in the school admission registers and birth registers regarding paternity, the recitals themselves cannot be treated as substantive evidence and as admissible on the question concerning paternity purportedly indicated in the said documents, as such entries are matters extraneous to what is strictly enjoined upon the officer to record. " ( 13 ) THE law in this regard can be summarised as follows:birth and death extracts can be admissible in evidence under Section 35 of the evidence ACT to show that a particular person by that name mentioned in the document was either born or dead on that particular day. But, in Order to establish that the said entry relates to a particular person, there must be some evidence led by the party contending that such an entry relates to a particular person. Further, it is very clear that the entry in that birth or death extract cannot be a document to prove the paternity of a person mentioned there, because it is not the duty of the person who makes those entries to make any entry as to the paternity of the person mentioned there. The entries are only regarding birth and death of the person concerned and the official concerned is required to make these entries only in the discharge of his official duties. The document cannot be used for any purpose other than to prove the date of birth or death of a particular person mentioned in the extract. On the basis of mere entries in the birth or death extract, the paternity of a person cannot be determined. For that purpose, a party concerned will have to lead some other evidence to prove that a particular person was born to a particular man when that point is in issue in the case. ( 14 ) THE entire case of the appellants is based on exhibits p-2 and p-3. Exhibit p-3 cannot be relied upon because it is neither a certified extract nor it is any document. Even exhibit p-2 is the death extract of one khadar vallad gousumia inamdar. The date of registration of the entry is 1-8-1922. Exhibit p-2 bears the seal of the tahsildar, khanapur. Therefore, it can be presumed that it is an extract from the register of births and deaths issued under the registration of birth and death Act, 1969. This exhibit p-2 will be admissible in evidence to show that a person by name khadar vallad gousumia inamdar died on 1-8-1922. But, on the basis of exhibit p-2 it cannot be inferred that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia inamdar if it is disputed by the other side that khadarsaheb was not the son of gousmia inamdar. This exhibit p-2 will be admissible in evidence to show that a person by name khadar vallad gousumia inamdar died on 1-8-1922. But, on the basis of exhibit p-2 it cannot be inferred that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia inamdar if it is disputed by the other side that khadarsaheb was not the son of gousmia inamdar. Persons contending that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia inamdar will have to prove their contention by some other evidence in addition to exhibit p-2. But the contention of the appellants is that this entry was made by imamsaheb himself who was acting as a police patil then. It has come in evidence that imamsaheb had assumed office of police patil and he was doing patilki work and his duties also consisted of entering the dates of births and deaths of persons' in the requisite registers. On the basis of this evidence, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that immasaheb could not venture to make an entry in exhibit p-2 showing khadarsaheb as the son of gousmia if it were not to be so. The evidence that is led does not clinchingly prove that imamsaheb was officiating as police patil on the relevant date when the entry came to be made and that he was maintaining the registers of births and deaths. D. W. 1 has not stated in his evidence stating that the entry in exhibit p-2 was made by imamsaheb in his capacity as police patil of devaraya village. The evidence of D. W. 1 is that his father was performing patilki service since 1922 and since 1934 he has been performing patilki service. But he has also further stated that he does not know if the original entry dated 1-8-1922 in the death register was written by his father. In view of this evidence given by defendant-1 it cannot be said that defendant-1's evidence is sufficient to hold that the entry of the death in the original of exhibit p-2 has been made by imamsaheb. Therefore, merely on the basis of exhibit p-2 it cannot be said that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia who was the husband of aminabi. There is another circumstance which rules out the possibility of khadarsaheb being the son of gousmia who was the husband of aminabi. Therefore, merely on the basis of exhibit p-2 it cannot be said that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia who was the husband of aminabi. There is another circumstance which rules out the possibility of khadarsaheb being the son of gousmia who was the husband of aminabi. Exhibit d-13 which is referred to and styled as a will of deceased aminabi is an important document to be considered in this regard. Though it styled as will, it appears to be a sort of arrangement made by aminabi for the management of the property. In that document, aminabi has named imamsaheb as her son. Aminabi died in the year 1921 i. e. one year prior to the death of khadarsaheb referred to in exhibit p-2 and exhibit d-13 is a document that came to be executed on 12-9-1988, but there is no reference in exhibit d-13 either to khadarsaheb or khajnabi. If really aminabi had some other children besides imamsaheb, aminabi would not have failed to mention or referred to them in exhibit d-13 which came to be executed on 12-9-1988. In exhibit d-13 aminabi had made arrangements for taking care of her son imamsaheb. A perusal of exhibit d-13 discloses aminabi had no other children except imamsaheb. If there were to be any other children like khadarsaheb or khajnabi born to aminabi from gousmia, aminabi as a mother would not have forgotten to make some arrangement for them also, or at least to mention their names in exhibit d-13. Non-mention of the name of khadarsaheb or khajnabi is a very strong circumstance which disproves the case of the appellants that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia and aminabi. The lower appellate court has considered all these aspects of the case and has properly given a finding to the effect that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that khadarsaheb was the son of gousmia. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree challenged in this appeal. ( 15 ) HENCE I proceed to pass the following order:the appeal is dismissed. No Order as to costs. --- *** --- .