JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.—The above second appeal has been filed by the defendants in Case No. 43/1 of 1986 on the file of the learned subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Nalagarh, Solan District, against the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 62/NL/13 of 1992 dated 10.1.1994 whereunder the learned First appellate Judge, while reversing and setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge decreed the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs, as prayed for. 2. The plaintiffs-respondents filed the suit seeking for declaration to the effect that the Will dated 12.6.1979 be declared null and void, it being not a genuine document and not executed by one Jeet Ram in favour of the defendants and for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants from claiming right, title or interest in the land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.7/33, total plots 7, measuring 11 Bighas 4 Biswas as per Jamabandi copy for the year 1983-84, situated in village Dol, Paragana Nalagarh and land comprised in Khewat/Khatauni No.53/81 bearing Khasra Nos. 122(5-5), 123(1-3), 199(0-9), 200(0-9), 201(0-17), 202(2-00), 203(2-1), 268(0-3), 301(1-03), 308(1-03) and 323(0-4), land measuring 14 Bighas 17 Biswas, situated in village Ambwala, Pargana Plassi, Tehsil Nalagarh, as per entries in the copy of Jamabandi for the year 1980-81 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land). The case of the plaintiffs was that they were daughters of late Jeet Ram, who indisputably is the absolute owner of the property, that the said Jeet Ram was joint owner to the extent of 1/2 share with his brother Hari Ram, the father of the defendants and that the deceased Jeet Ram was married to Smt. Dwarki, the mother of the plaintiffs and out of their wedlock the plaintiffs were born and after the death of their father Jeet Ram, they applied for attestation of the mutation of his estate in their favour and on coming to know that the defendants had already got entered the mutation in respect of the estate in their name on the basis of Will purported to have been executed in their favour by Jeet Ram on<12.6.1979, they were constrained to file the suit for the reliefs, as noticed above. The defendants/appellants contained by disputing the very claim of the plaintiffs that they were the daughters of late Jeet Ram, in addition to disputing also the fact that Dwarki the mother of the plaintiffs was ever married to Jeet Ram. The defendants/appellants contained by disputing the very claim of the plaintiffs that they were the daughters of late Jeet Ram, in addition to disputing also the fact that Dwarki the mother of the plaintiffs was ever married to Jeet Ram. It was the plea on behalf of the defendants that the mother of the plaintiffs was initially married to one Dasondi and later on she settled with one Ram Chand and the plaintiffs were born after her marriage with said Ram Chand. Besides, the claim of the defendants was that they looked after Jeet Ram and maintained by them and being pleased with their services the Will was executed by giving the entire property in their favour. The defendants also pleaded that in a suit filed by Must. Attri the sister of the previous husband of Dwarki by name Dasondi in the year 1958, the mother of the plaintiffs Dwarki took the stand that she has not contracted any marriage with Jeet Ram and that she has not given by birth from his loins. On that score, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief, as prayed for, and that they are estopped from filing the suit for the relief of the nature in question. 3. On the above claims and counter-claims, the suit came to be tried, and by a judgment and decree dated 11.9.1992, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they were the daughters of late Jeet Ram. Similarly, the claim of the defendants projected on the basis of the Will was also rejected holding that the defendants had not proved the execution of the Will by Jeet Ram in their favour and held the said issue framed in the suit, against the defendants. 4. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. Similarly, the claim of the defendants projected on the basis of the Will was also rejected holding that the defendants had not proved the execution of the Will by Jeet Ram in their favour and held the said issue framed in the suit, against the defendants. 4. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed an appeal. The learned first appellate Judge while considering the materials on record and adopting his own method of assessment and re-appreciation of the evidence chose to differ from the factual findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in the matter of relationship of the plaintiffs claimed through Jeet Ram as his daughters and held that the plaintiffs succeeded in substantiating their claim and, therefore, held that the plaintiffs are daughters of deceased Jeet Ram and as such they acquired the right to inherit his property in case it is held that Jeet Ram died intestate. As for the Will projected by the defendants in their favour as having been executed by late Jeet Ram, the learned first appellate Judge, even in the absence of any memorandum of cross-objections, chose to go into the question, apparently on the nature of the relief sought for in the suit by the plaintiffs themselves and concurred with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and held that Jeet Ram was not of sound mind at the time of the alleged execution of the Will and, therefore, it cannot be said that he possessed a sound disposing state of mind when he allegedly executed the Will and consequently, the suspicisios circumstances surrounding the alleged execution of the Will has not been properly explained by the defendants. Ultimately, the learned first appellate Judge, as indicated earlier, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge and decreed the suit, as prayed for. 5. Aggrieved, the defendants have filed the above appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, as could be seen from the order-sheets, when the main appeal was part-heard, an opportunity was taken under the orders of the learned Single Judge who was hearing the appeal, to let in additional evidence in the sense of proof of the documents, copies of which were already brought on record during the trial of the present suit. AW-1, said to be one Roshan Lai, son of Likhu Ram was examined as a witness on oath on 5.8.1998 and he produced the birth and death register said to have been maintained by the father Likhu Ram and tried to prove the entry dated 18.4.1958, which was marked as Ex. AW-1/A and the original entry in this regard was spoken to be in the hand of the father of the said deponent. Of course, it was elicited that the said entries were in the handwriting of his father, that he himself was born in the year 1968-69 and that after his father had grown old, he was made Chowkidar and that he do not know Urdu and that the Register is not complete as it is old one and it is in the broken form and now the Panchayat is maintaining the birth and death register and the old registers have not been deposited with the Panchayat. The learned Counsel for the appellants Mr. Gautam, while elaborating the substantial questions of law formulated in the appeal for consideration, contended that the first appellate Court has misread and misdirected himself in appreciating the documents Exts. PA, PB and PF and other documentary and oral evidence on record, while upsetting the findings of the learned trial Judge that the plaintiffs are not the daughters of Jeet Ram, the previous owner of the property in dispute. In order to substantiate his grievance as also the point on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel invited my attention to the relevant portions of the judgment of the learned trial Judge and also that of the learned first appellate Judge and contended that the manner of appreciation of the evidence by the learned trial Judge was quite in accordance with law and there was neither any justification for the learned first appellate Judge to re-appreciate the materials in a different manner nor that he had any additional materials to go behind such appreciations of evidence and consideration of the materials as well as the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and that therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Judge are liable to be set aside and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Judge, restored. In attacking the credibility of the materials produced at the appellate stage, the learned Counsel also contended that the materials brought on record are not in any manner worth credence or merit any acceptance so to undermine the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge and that the said materials as also the deposition of AW-1 do not improve the case, in any manner, of the plaintiffs to entitle them to the relief, which, according to the learned Counsel for the appellants, was erroneously granted by the learned first appellate Judge. The learned Counsel relied upon the decision reported in AIR 1983 P & H 366 (Sarwan Singh and others v. Ashok Kumar and others), wherein a learned single Judge of the said High Court held that mere production of birth entry would not as a matter of law be sufficient to connect the same with the person claiming the birth entry to be of his own. It may be noticed at this stage that such observations came to be made in the context of the plea of limitation raised in respect of a suit filed to seek for a declaration to set aside the alienation by the father and the plaintiffs claim that they were minors at the time of the sale effected by the father. This fact was held to be not substantiated by the mere production of birth entries without connecting those entries to the plaintiffs themselves to prove that they were really minors at the time when the sale was effected by their father. The discrepancy in the dates of birth was found also in that case not properly explained by examining, in proof, their mother. In my view, the principle laid down therein will have no relevance to the case where the question is not so much as to whether those entries in the documents related or not to the petitioner, but that they are not the real or authentic documents, which could be relied upon to prove the parentage of the plaintiffs in the teeth of their mother having been alleged to have been living with one Ram Chand and that the plaintiffs were born only when their mother allegedly contracted marriage with the said Ram Chand. 6. Per contra, Mr. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents contended while placing reliance upon the decisions reported in AIR 1998 S.C. 1132 (Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. 1 KM. Krishnaiah and AIR 1967 Orissa 129; (Annapurna Sahuani v. Narendra Prasad Sahu and others) that the judgment rendered by a competent Court filed and marked as Ex. PB could be relevant piece of materials and admissible in evidence, on which reliance could also be legitimately placed by a competent Court and that no exception could be taken to the action of the learned first appellate Judge in placing reliance upon the same to uphold the claim of the plaintiffs. It is also contended that the relevant Rules governing the powers, duties and obligations of village Chowkidars as were prevalent and as laid down under the Punjab Chowkidar Rules as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, envisaged also that one of the duties of the village headman and village watchman was to maintain a death register and a birth register and to report to the officer incharge and therefore, inasmuch the person who maintained the said register has been examined in the previous suit which resulted in a judgment, which is marked in the proceedings as Ex. PB and that the original register has also now been brought and marked at the stage of the appeal in this Court, no exception could be taken to the said material being relied upon in adjudicating the rights of the parties and that too in determining the parentage of the plaintiffs. It is also contended for the respondents that the judgment marked as Ex. PB shows that the very Likhu Ram father of AW-1 has been examined in the Court in the said earlier suit and he produced also the original record, which has been accepted by the Court and after taking the copies for record the original came to be returned and in the light of all these facts, the reliance placed by the learned first appellate Judge on such documents and materials cannot be objected to at all and consequently, no infirmity could be demonstrated successfully in the findings recorded by the first appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs. Argued the learned Counsel for the respondents further by placing reliance upon the decision reported in (1998) 6 SCC 423 (Satya Gupta (Smt) alias Madhu Gupta v. Brijesh Kumar) that this Court may not be pleased to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court, as normally the fined Court of facts, particularly, when such findings of fact are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as perverse or based on no evidence. The relevant passage relied upon in this regard for the respondents reads as follows: "16. At the outset, we would like to point out that the findings on facts by the lower appellate Court as a final Court of facts, are based on appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be treated as perverse or based on no evidence. That being the position, we are of the view that the High Court, after re appreciating the evidence and without finding that the conclusion reached by the lower appellate Court were not based on the evidence, reversed the conclusions on facts on the ground that the view taken by it was also a possible view on the facts. The High Court, it is well settled, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100, CPC, cannot reverse the findings of the lower appellate Court on facts merely on the ground that on the facts found by the lower appellate Court another view was possible." 7. In AIR 1998 SC 1132 (supra), their Lordships of the apex Court dealt with the law relating to the relevance of the judgments not inter-parties and the admissibility of such documents in evidence in the light of the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872. His Lordship M. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for the Bench observed as hereunder: “9. In our view, this contention is clearly contrary to the rulings of this Court as well as those of the Privy Council. In Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, AIR 1954 SC 379, speaking on behalf of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court. Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that a judgment not inter-parties is admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as evidence of an assertion of a right to property in dispute. In Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango, AIR 1954 SC 379, speaking on behalf of a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court. Venkatarama Ayyar, J. held that a judgment not inter-parties is admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as evidence of an assertion of a right to property in dispute. A contention that judgments other than those falling under Sections 40 to 44 of the Evidence Act were not admissible in evidence was expressly rejected. Again B.K. Mukherjee, J. (as he then was) speaking on behalf of a Bench of four learned Judges in Sital Das v. Sant Ram, AIR 1954 SC 606, held that a previous judgment not inter-parties, was admissible in evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act as a transaction in which a right to property was asserted and recognised. In fact, much earlier, Lord Lindley held in the Privy Council in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini, (1992) ILR 29 Cal 190(198) (PC), that previous judgment, not inter-parties was admissbile in evidence under Section 13 to show who the parties were, what they lands in disputes were and who was declared entitled to retain them. The criticism of the Judgments in Dinamoni v. Brajmohini and Ram Ranjan Chakerbati v. Ram Narain Singh, (1895) ILR 22 Cal 533 (PC), by Sir Jonh Woodroffe in his commentary on the Evidence Act (1931), p. 181) was not accepted by Lord Blaneshburgh in Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunder, AIR 1934 PC 157: 61 IA 286." 8. In AIR 1967 Orissa 129 (supra), while adverting to the provisions contained in Sections 63 and 64 and applying the principles laid down by the Privy Council in AIR 1915 PC 111, it was observed that when a document has been marked in evidence and no objection was taken in respect of its admissibility or otherwise of the same at the initial stage, the law is well settled that it is not permissible to be raised at the subsequent stage or in the appeal, if not raised at the earliest point of time when the documents are tendered in evidence in the trial Court. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. 9. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. In my view, there is no need for rejecting the objection taken by the learned Counsel for the appellants merely on the technical ground that it has not been raised at the earliest point of time though it is permissible to do so in this case, in view of the sufficient and overwhelming materials on record to prove the facts otherwise. The document pertaining to the birth extract though was not produced in original in the Court below and the learned trial Judge had his own view and reasons in the matter for not to act upon the same, per contra the learned first appellate Judge chose to act upon the same by differing from the view taken by the learned trial Judge. The said register in whatever form that has been available has been accepted to be produced and actually produced at the appellate stage in this Court by AW-1, who is said to be the son of the then village Chowkidar, who was said to have maintained the register. In view of the above and the further fact that the relevant rules contained in the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual found specified in Chapter V as Rule 22, make it clear that it was one and peat of the duties of the Chowkidar of the village to maintain the birth and death register, and since the document had come to be produced from a genuine and legitimate source, the same cannot be rejected summarily on the ground that what was produced before the trial Judge was only a photostat copy. It is in this context, the judgment marked in evidence as Ex. PB assumes significance. The relevant portion in paragraph 3 from the said judgment of the learned subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Kandaghat, dated 20.12.1958 in file No.41 of 27.3.1958, would show that the very Chowkidar by name Likhu Singh was examined in evidence and he produced the registers before the said Court even at that time. The relevant observations read as follows: “3. Issue No. 2.—This constitutes the most important issue in the case. It may be mentioned right away that there is no documentary proof on the point. The relevant observations read as follows: “3. Issue No. 2.—This constitutes the most important issue in the case. It may be mentioned right away that there is no documentary proof on the point. As regards the oral testimony, it comprises the statements of Lakhu Singh, a Naib Sarpanch of a nearby village Palli, and of Telu and Hari Ram from village Jai-wal itself of Baggu a lamberdar of a neighbouring village Baglehar, of Jieonoo a Chawkidar from village Palli and of the statement made by Mst. Attri herself. All these witnesses state on oath that Mst. Dwarki entered into a Krewa Marriage with Jitoo in their presence about six to seven months after the death of her husband Dasondhi. It is also in their statements that Jitto was the adopted of Gobinda, the pro forma defendant. Jieonoo of these witnesses further proved P.W.5/A1, an entry from the birth and death register maintained by him and he adds that it was Jitoo himself who reported to him the birth of a daughter to him. All these witnesses are quite dis-interested and absolutely independent. There is not an iota of evidence on the file to render their statements unworthy of belief." 10. Consequently, the objection about the reliability of the document, in my view, does not survive for being countenanced not only for the reason that even the so-called defect urged has been rectified but also for the reason that it is no defect at all in the light of the facts found noticed in the judgment of the Court marked as Ex. PB. Coming to the legality and propriety of the finding recorded by the learned first appellate Judge in relation to the parentage of the plaintiffs as the daughters of late Jeet Ram. PB. Coming to the legality and propriety of the finding recorded by the learned first appellate Judge in relation to the parentage of the plaintiffs as the daughters of late Jeet Ram. This Court being a second appellate Court, it has to be seen primarily by this Court as to whether the findings, though by way of reversal which have been recorded by the learned first appellate Judge can be said to be based on no evidence or that they can be treated as having been vitiated by perversity of approach or in the matter of proper appreciation of the materials, in the light of declaration of the law by their Lordships of the apex Court that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 100, C.P.C., this Court may not reverse the findings of the lower appellate Court on facts merely on the ground that on the facts found by the lower appellate Court, another view was possible. The learned trial Judge, in my view, has adopted a hypertechnical view in the matter of the appreciation of the materials and has chosen to go astray in not properly appreciating the materials also in accordance with the well-settled principles, which have been noticed. A perusal of the trial Court judgment though lengthy in size rendered by the learned trial Judge disclose that the learned trial Judge went off the mark to pick unnecessarily loopholes for discrediting the materials, which have been placed on record by the plaintiffs. If only the learned trial Judge was alive to the relevancy of the judgment rendered in the earlier proceedings, though not inter-parties and adverted to some vital facts noticed therein and circumstances in which the documents marked therein were produced which have been also brought on record in this proceeding during the trial, there would not have been occasion for him to render such a perfunctory and irregular finding. In my view, it is this serious infirmity and irregularity committed by the learned trial Judge which has been set right by the learned first appellate Judge choosing to appreciate the materials on record not only in their proper perspective but also in the manner in which it has to be and as is expected of a Court of law, particularly, a first appellate Court whose power in the matter of appreciation and reappreciation of the evidence as it appeals to him is as wide as that of a trial Court. The manner of appreciation as well as consideration of the materials undertaken by the learned first appellate Judge in this case in paragraphs 12 to 17 cannot be said to be in any manner vitiated in law or can be accused of being either perverse or irregular in the light of the pronouncement of the law that a decision of a competent Court on a relevant issue can be a relevant piece of evidence in another proceeding through not inter-parties. The credibility of the material like Ex. PB, the judgment of a competent Court cannot be easily overlooked or ignored as has been done by the learned trial Judge in this case. Though in order to perhaps acquire some property rights in the estate of her original husband Dasondi, the mother of the plaintiffs might have taken a stand that she has not contracted marriage after the death of her first husband with Jeet Ram and has not begot the two daughters through him, on the basis of convincing materials, including the birth certificate which has been now put in issue in the present case, and the oral evidence tendered by examining of relevant person apparently including the brother of said Jeet Ram, the father of the defendants, the learned Judge who decided the case, the judgment of which is marked as Ex. PB held that the mother of the plaintiffs has taken Jeet Ram as her second husband and denied her the property rights in the estate of her first husband in the suit filed by the sister of the said first husband. PB held that the mother of the plaintiffs has taken Jeet Ram as her second husband and denied her the property rights in the estate of her first husband in the suit filed by the sister of the said first husband. These materials, in my view, will constitute sufficient as well as relevant material which could be taken into account in adjudging the rival claims of the parties in the present proceedings and though the said material may not be of conclusive proof and may not constitute by itself any res judicata as well between parties in the present proceedings, the relevancy of the same cannot be either ignored or refused to be taken note of. If the material noticed in the judgment, which have been marked also in the present case as also the judgment marked as Ex. PB is to be considered to be relevant material, the question then requires to be considered is as to what materials were placed by the defendants-appellants before the Court below either to undermine the credibility of those materials or to prove any fact contra to the said materials or findings recorded in the earlier proceeding, though not inter parties. The answer could be only in the negative and against the plaintiffs and consequently, the factual findings recorded by the learned first appellate Judge on the basis of the relevant and sufficient materials which were brought on record could not be castigated and condemned as either one based on no evidence or vitiated by any perversity of approach. Therefore, there is no justification for this Court to interfere with such findings of fact at the instance of the appellate in this second appeal. The challenge in this regard to the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Judge, therefore, fails and shall stand rejected. 11. As for the Will projected on the basis of which also the defendants projected their rights, the least said is better. As noticed earlier, even the learned trial Judge condemned the plea in this regard and categorically held that the defendants failed to prove the Will and could not explain the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged execution of the Will in their favour. The learned first appellate Judge also equally gone into the question and concurred with the findings with his own reasons too and rejected the claim based on the Will. The learned first appellate Judge also equally gone into the question and concurred with the findings with his own reasons too and rejected the claim based on the Will. The learned Counsel for the appellants in spite of his best efforts and endeavour made in this Court could not successfully dislodge those concurrent findings of fact recorded in this regard by pointing out any infirmity whatsoever in the same. Consequently, the challenge in this regard also fails and shall stand rejected. For all the reasons stated above, the second appeal fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Interim order is vacated. Second appeal dismissed. -