JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J.— The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 26-4-1993 passed by District Judge, Hamirpur, whereby the appeal preferred, assailing the judgment and decree of Sub-Judge (1), Hamirpur dated 6-12-1985, was disallowed. 2. The facts, giving rise to the present proceedings are that one Suhru Ram, S/o Sh. Kalia was the owner of the suit property, as detailed in the plaint. He was alleged to have left his house at a very tender age of 9 years before 1947 and was not heard of by his relations for more than 7 years. It was in January 1968 that mutation of inheritance of the suit property owned by said Suhru Ram was entered and attested in favour of his mother Smt Chiri. The mother of Suhru Ram thereafter executed a Will in favour of her daughter Smt, Chinti on 28-8-1973 and also executed a gift in favour of present appellants and respondent No. 2 on 3-6-1974, who were the sons of her daughter Smt. Chinti. 3. This Suhru Ram was alleged to have come back to his home in the year 1975 and when he noticed the present appellants and respondent No. 2 (defendants) in possession of his property, he requested them for vacating the possession of the property owned by him, but the defendants, instead of surrendering the possession, refused to recognise said Suhru Ram as the same peison who was the son of Kalia. Said Suhru Ram, respondent No. 1 then filed a suit in September 1975 for possession of the suit propert) against the defendants alleging therein that he was still alive and the muta tion entered and attested in favour of Smt. Chiri, his mother and thereafter in favour of defendants on the basis of gift, were illegal and unsustainable. Mother of said Suhru had already died in the year 197i. 4. Defendants contested the suit and their main plea had been that the mutation of inheritance was rightly entered and attested in favour of Smt. Chiri because said Suhru Ram was not heard of for more than 7 years. The factum of execution of Will and gift has not been disputed. However, the main defence of the defendants had been that the present plaintiff, who is claiming himself to be Suhru Ram was an imposter and has been brought by Smt. Suhio, the other daughter of Srat. The factum of execution of Will and gift has not been disputed. However, the main defence of the defendants had been that the present plaintiff, who is claiming himself to be Suhru Ram was an imposter and has been brought by Smt. Suhio, the other daughter of Srat. Chiri in order to divest the defendants from the suit property. 5. Parties were put to trial on the following issues : 1. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction ? OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is the son of Kalia son of Pritam ? OPP. 2 (a). Whether Smt Chidi has executed a valid Will dated 23-8-1973 in favour of Smt. Chinti and a valid gift deed dated 3-6-1974 in favour of defendants as alleged ? OPD. 3. Relief The issues were decided by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiff and a decree for possession of the suit property was passed in his favour and against the defendants 6. The aforesaid judgment and decree were assailed by the present appellants before the District Judge, Hamirpur, on various pleas and the learned District Judge framed the following points for determination, arising in the said appeal : 1. Whether the plaintiff is proved to be the same Suhru Ram son of Kalia son of Pritam. If so, its effect ? 2. Final order. The first appellate Court decided first point in the affirmative and as a consequence thereof, dismissed the appeal. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court have been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds 7. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the record has also been scrutinised. 8. The sole point stressed before this Court on behalf of the appellants has been that both the Courts below erred in law in holding the present plaintiff to be Suhru Ram son of Kalia, especially when there was over whelming evidence examined during the trial of the suit, which proved the present plaintiff to be an imposter It is not so simple a matter, as has been contended on behalf of the appellants, in order to appreciate this aspect of the matter, the pleadings as well as the evidence examined in this behalf have to be legally appreciated. 9. 9. The plaintiff Suhru Ram S/o Kalia S/o Pritam claimed himself to be the real Suhru Ram and in the year 1975, when he came back to his house, he noticed defendants to be in occupation of the property owned by him which had been wrongly mutated in their names. He further pleaded that in search of some work, he left his house and his mother wrongly and fictitiously, ignoring the actual facts, made an incorrect representation and on that behalf, got mutation of inheritance of the plaintiff sanctioned and the plaintiff was not bound by the same. 10, The defendants took the defence in their written statement that plaintiff was not the son of Kalia and Smt. Chiri was not his mother. They pleaded (hat plaintiff was a stranger. However, they admitted that Suhru Ram was son of Kalia They also admitted that Suhru Ram was the maternal uncle of the defendants who, for the last 30 years, was untraced and on that account, it amounted to the civil death of Suhru 11. The pleadings have been purposely referred here at this stage, as it would be noticed later on that the defendants brought certain evidence to this effect that this Suhru Ram was an imposter and actually he was one person, named, "Salig Ram S/o Sunder Lal, Brahmin, R/o Bhota/Jhugi Jamuna, P. O Hamirpur, District Kangra". At this stage, it may be referred here that defendants pleadings are absolutely silent in this particular regard Their simple case, as pleaded in the written statement and as referred to earlier, had been that this plaintiff was an imposter There is nothing in the pleadings that the plaintiff was actually Salig Ram S/o Sunder Lai, Brahmin, as described above. 12, Learned District Judge has observed that where the opinion as to the relationship of one person to another is to form, the opinion expressed by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person who is a member of family or otherwise has special means of knowledge is a relevant fact. 13 The aforesaid observations are nothing but the provisions contained in section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. 14. 13 The aforesaid observations are nothing but the provisions contained in section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act. 14. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in the present case, applicability of section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act was not called for, especially when the relationship of Suhru Ram with Kalia stood admitted and the point in dispute was the identity of the plaintiff, who claimed himself to be said Suhru Ram and for the purpose of identity, the provisions of section 50, referred to above, may not be relevant. 15. It is correct that Suhru Ram was the son of Kalia, which status is claimed by the plaintiff. The relationship of Suhru Ram with Kalia, no doubt, is admitted, but ia order to establish the identity of the plaintiff with Suhru Ram as son of Kalia, it has to be, in a way, established that the present plaintiff was Suhru Ram S/o Kalia, through legally competent evidence and that evidence, to fix that identity definitely, has to come from the witnesses who were the relations of Kalia and who had any special knowledge about such a relationship of the present plaintiff with Kalia. With this background, the evidence of the relations even to fix the identity of the plaintiff with Suhru Ram son of Kalia, shall be very much relevant and to that extent, the provisions of section 50 of lndian Evidence Act have to be taken note of. 16. Parties have examined oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case. 16. Parties have examined oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case. Plaintiff examined himself as PW 8 and supported his case on oath before the trial Court The other witnesses examined by the plaiatiff were PW I Rubbar Ram, a collatoral of the plaintiff, PW 2 Khiali Ram, plaintiffs first cousin, PW 3 Shri Paras Ram, Numberdar of the area, PW 4 Ghaga Ram, first cousin of the plaintiff, PW 5 Shri Rirku Ram, a collatoral of the plaintiff, PW 6 Shri Khajana Ram, cousin of the plaintiff, PW 7 Siiri Lachhman, the resident of the village, PW 7/A Smt. Suhlo Devi, sister of the plaintiff and other witnesses All these witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff were closely related to Kalia and, in a way, were very much relevant to depose regarding the relationship of the present plaintiff with Kalia, more so, to establish and connect the identity of the present plaintiff with Suhru Ram son of Kalia. All these witnesses are unanimous in deposing on oath that the present plaintiff was Suhru Ram S/o Kalia The Numberdar of the area Shri Paras Ram and Lachhman, the resident of the said village were the witnesses who had special knowledge about this relationship, on account of the fact that one was Numberdar who was presumed to know Kalia in that capacity and the other, being the resident of that village, too was expected to have special knowledge regarding the said relationship. In so far as the statement made on oath by Smt Suhlo Devi, the sister of the plaintiff was concerned, the said statement has been assailed on the sole ground that she was the lady who has brought this person and represented him to be the real Suhru Ram and. therefore, her version should not be accepted, I think, simply because it has been the case of the defendants that this imposter has been thrusted by this lady, will not improve their case, especially when all the witnesses named above, with one voice, have identified the plaintiff to be Suhru Ram S/o Kalia. 17. The statement of PW 3 Paras Ram, Numberdar, has been assailed to be not relied upon on the sole ground that this Numberdar appeared before the Revenue Officer when the mutation of inheritance of Suhru was attested. In this behalf, the statement of this PW 3 has been referred. 17. The statement of PW 3 Paras Ram, Numberdar, has been assailed to be not relied upon on the sole ground that this Numberdar appeared before the Revenue Officer when the mutation of inheritance of Suhru was attested. In this behalf, the statement of this PW 3 has been referred. During cross-examination, this PW 3 deposed that it was correct that the mutation was attested in favour of Suhrus mother Chiri and according to this witness, that mutation was presented twice in his presence. However, on further cross-examination, he deposed that it was incorrect that on 9-12-1967 and 31-1-1968 he appeared before the Tehsildar at Bhota and attested that Suhru was untraced for the last 20-25 years. In a case of present nature, even if for arguments sake, this Numberdar was present at the time of attestation of mutation in favour of the mother of Suhru Ram, those proceedings in the mutation will not can any legal weight in preference to the statement made by this witness on oath. Otherwise also, those mutations were attested in the years 1967 and 1968 and this witness, on oath, has very specifically stated that Suhru Ram returned to his house in the year 1975 and prior to that he returned in the year 1967 and this Suhru Ram, according to this witness, son of Kalia, was the plaintiff residing in the Numberdari of the witness Needless to say, the version given by this witness on oath, has t > be appreciated in the background of the circumstances present in this case and the mutation proceedings which have been denied to have taken place in his presence by this witness, even if were held in his presence, will not carry any legal weight and the matter has to be disposed of on the basis of the evidence examined during the trial of the suit. Those mutations, at the maximum, could be used as a piece of evidence 18. In 1971 PLR 470, Ramji Lal y. Gainda Singh and others, it has been held that neither the report of the Rojnamcha of the Patwari nor the mutation was part of the record of rights and, therefore, under section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, no presumption of truth attaches to such documents. In 1971 PLR 470, Ramji Lal y. Gainda Singh and others, it has been held that neither the report of the Rojnamcha of the Patwari nor the mutation was part of the record of rights and, therefore, under section 44 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, no presumption of truth attaches to such documents. It has further been observed that such a document can be treated as apiece of evidence, Similarly, in AIR 1982 HP 38, Nanda v. Punnu Ram and others, it has been held as under : "The object of mutation is to keep the entries in the record of rights up to-date.The record of rights have a presumption of correctness under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act. The mutation proceedings by themselves do not determine the question of right and title and the presumption of correctness attaching to the entries of mutation as well as the record of rights is rebuttable." In this Nanda v Punnu Rams case (supra\ it was found that in the order passed by Revenue Officer in the mutation proceedings, the factum of transfer of oral gift of suit land in favour of the plaintiff was accepted by the donor, but during the trial of the suit, the donor in his deposition on oath denied this fact and in these circumstances, it was held that much reliance could not be placed on the entries and/or factum of acceptance of gift as recorded in the order of Revenue Officer, more so when neither the person who identified the donor and plaintiff before Revenue Officer nor the Revenue Officer himself was produced in evidence. 19. In the present case, Shri Paras Ram Numberdar has specifically denied to be present at the time of attestation of those mutations, though, according to him, when the mutation was taken up for 2-3 hearings, he was present. On oath, he has specifically stated that he was not present at all Without examining other evidence that of the Revenue Officer, the version given by this witness on oath, has to be accepted. Any presumption attached, as such, stood otherwise rebutted. 20. On the other hand, defendants examined DW 3 Chartu Ram, DW 4 Kalu Ram, who were the brothers of Smt Chiri DW 3 stated that Suhru, after marriage, had gone to Lahore where his sister Suhlo was residing. Any presumption attached, as such, stood otherwise rebutted. 20. On the other hand, defendants examined DW 3 Chartu Ram, DW 4 Kalu Ram, who were the brothers of Smt Chiri DW 3 stated that Suhru, after marriage, had gone to Lahore where his sister Suhlo was residing. This is the version given by Suhlo also, when she appeared as a witness of the plaintiff He further stated that he has seen the plaintiff in the Court, who was not his sisters son. Similar is the version given by DW 4 Kalu Ram. He stated that Suhru was married and that at the time of marriage, his age was 9 years. He further added that he did not know where was Suhru at present. He has been specific in deposing that the plaintiff, present in the Court, was not his sisters son Suhru Smt. Chinti Devi has been examined as DW 12 while other witnesses have also been examined, who have tried to support the defendants case. 21. It may be very specifically referred here that apart from the aforesaid relative witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants, the other witnesses belonged to some other village and cannot be said to have any special knowledge regarding the alleged relationship. 22. It may not be out of place to refer here that there is not a single witness examined on behalf of the defendants, who could give the actual identity of plaintiff. In case plaintiff was not Suhru Ram, what was the identity of this person, which could have been proved through other documentary and oral evidence so that the relationship being claimed by the plaintiff could be excluded. 23. In case plaintiff was not Suhru Ram, what was the identity of this person, which could have been proved through other documentary and oral evidence so that the relationship being claimed by the plaintiff could be excluded. 23. At this stage, much reliance is being placed on Ex D~3 on behalf of the respondents which document, according to them, rebutted the entire evidence adduced by the plaintiff This document pertained to the comparison of finger impressions of the plaintiff with finger impressions of one person named Salig Ram S/o Sunder Lai, Brahmin, R/o Bhota Jhugi Jamuna, P. O Hamirpur, District Kangra The opinion of the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, for the sake of convenience, is being reproduced hereunder : "We have compared the finger impressions on the documents noted in the margin received on 24-5-1982 from Sh, R. C. Sharma, Sub-Judge 1st Class, Hamirpur in case Suhru Ham v, Lekh Ram etc., vide his Memo No. S. J (HMR)-82/292 dated 20-5-l982 and are of the opinion that the impressions marked 1 to 10 on the F. P. (R) Slip DS No. E-1705 of Delhi all are partly ink smudged and partly interfered with by the printed lines but otherwise, these are compare 1. Finger Print (Record) Slip prepared and are identical with pared under the name of Salig their corresponding ten digit Ram S/o Sunder Lal Brahmin R/o Bhota/Jhugi Jamuna P. S Hamirpur/KL Gate District Kangra or Delhi D. S. No, E 1705/Delhi bearing 10 digit impressions lying in the files of print Bureau impressions marked as 1/1, 2/2, 3/3, 4/4, 5/5, 6/6, 7/7, 8/8, 9/9 and 10/10 respectively on the search slip of Suhru Ram, There are sufficient (more than 8) points of similarity i. e. matching ridge characteristic details in their identical A search slip (in duplicate) without any discord-bearing 10 digit impression of in each set of matching Suhru Ram. impressions, So many points of similarity cannot be found to occur in the impressions of different thumbs and fingers. These are therefore, identical or are of one and the same person. Photographic enlargements of the said impressions marked 1 and 1/1 on the said F, P. (Record) slip and search slip are enclosed and marked as (I/A and 1/1/A) respectively. impressions, So many points of similarity cannot be found to occur in the impressions of different thumbs and fingers. These are therefore, identical or are of one and the same person. Photographic enlargements of the said impressions marked 1 and 1/1 on the said F, P. (Record) slip and search slip are enclosed and marked as (I/A and 1/1/A) respectively. 11 points of similarity in their same form and position have been graphically shown on them The nature, direction and sequence of each point has been indicated in its relevant circle. 1. Sd/- F. P. Expert 2. Sd/-Expert, FPB. The documents noted in the margin except the FP (R) Slips are returned herewith, in continuation to this office letter No. 104/8 dated 6-M982. His M. O. No. 2943 dated 24-5-1982 for Rs. 30 was received in this office on 27-5-1982. Sd/- Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur." On the basis of the aforesaid opinion, it is being argued that the present plaintiff was Salig Ram S/o Sh. Sunder Lai Brahmin R/o Bhota, Jhugi Jamuna, P. O, Hamirpur, District Kangra, Actually, the finger prints of said Salig Ram were taken from the record of some Delhi Court, where probably, that person was tried for some criminal offence and his finger prints were taken there. 24. The comparison of the finger impressions and the opinion in this behalf given by the expert was a relevant fact under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case, the expert has not been examined. There is no evidence on record that the plaintiff was the person who was convicted and whose finger prints were taken by the Delhi Court. No independent evidence in this particular behalf has been examined. 25. There is no doubt that finger prints of a person very rarely change, but the fact remains that the opinion of an expert is a corroborative piece of evidence, i. e. supporting evidence, and especially in this case, it cannot be legally said to prove the fact that these finger prints pertained to same Salig Ram, referred to above. 25. There is no doubt that finger prints of a person very rarely change, but the fact remains that the opinion of an expert is a corroborative piece of evidence, i. e. supporting evidence, and especially in this case, it cannot be legally said to prove the fact that these finger prints pertained to same Salig Ram, referred to above. In order to get any help from this opinion to come to the conclusion that plaintiff was Salig Ram and not Suhru Ram, it has first of all to be established by none else than by the defendants that the plaintiff, in the present case, who was representing himself to be Suhru Ram, was actually Salig Ram S/o Sunder Lai, whose address has already been detailed above, Salig Ram, on the basis of Ex. D-3, was the resident of Bhota, which is at present in Hamirpur District. The relatives of Salig Ram could have been produced to connect the identity of Salig Ram with the plaintiff. Documentary evidence, in this behalf, could have been examined to show whether any person by the name of Salig Ram as is referred to above, ever existed in that village Bhota or not. No attempt, is this behalf, has been made by the defendants. In case it could have been proved through substantive evidence that the plaintiff was Salig Ram, the aforesaid opinion could have been made use of to connect the identity of plaintiff with Salig Ram. It is really very sorry to note that without examining any legal evidence in this particular behalf, as discussed above, the opinion of expert is being relied upon to prove the identity of the plaintiff with alleged Salig Ram. This evidence in the shape of Ex. D-3 will not be legally competent to rebut the evidence examined by the plaintiff in this particular behalf, more so8 in the1 present case, as referred to above, the defendants have nowhere, in their pleadings, disclosed that the present plaintiff was Salig Ram S/o Sunder Lai, Brahmin. That aspect of the matter also weakens the case of the defendants, 26. D-3 will not be legally competent to rebut the evidence examined by the plaintiff in this particular behalf, more so8 in the1 present case, as referred to above, the defendants have nowhere, in their pleadings, disclosed that the present plaintiff was Salig Ram S/o Sunder Lai, Brahmin. That aspect of the matter also weakens the case of the defendants, 26. Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of the entire evidence, it cannot be said that the two Courts below acted illegally in appreciating the evidence and law in this particular behalf On the other hand, the concurrent findings, given by the two Courts below, do not require any interference by this Court. 27. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.