Judgment Gurusharan Sharma, J.-Ram Nandan Choubey of Village-Dusaiya, District Palamau had three sons, namely, Janki Choubey, Manki Choubey and Bindeshwari Choubey. Janki Choubey had a son, Balkeshwar, who left behind his son Shyam Sundar Choubey, Manki Choubey left behind three sons, Bhola Nath, Dhanukdhari and Nagendra Nath. Bindeshwari Choubey had two wives, Ramkali Kuer and Bhagwanti Kuer. Ramkali Kuer had a daughter, Kishun Kali Kuer, who was married with Bhuneshwar Choubey. She died in the year 1967, leaving behind her son, Bharat Choubey, the plaintiff and a daughter, Pranpati Devi, defendant no. 2 Bindeshwari Choubey also got a son, Udit Narain Choubey, defendant no. 1 from his second wife. 2. Plaintiff filed Partition Suit No. 35 of 1978 against the defendants for partition of his half share in the suit properties, detailed in Schedules A and B to the plaint. 3. According to plaintiff, Bindeshwari Choubey died in the year 1942, leaving behind his widow, Ramkali, daughter Kishun Kali Kuer and a son Udit Narain Choubey. His second wife had already predeceased him. Kishun Kali died in the year 1967. Thereafter Ramkali died on 30.9.1977 and defendant no. 2 has relinquished all her right, title and interest in his favour. 4. Defendant no. 1 filed written statement and contested the suit. According to him, the suit was barred by non-joinder of parties as the members of the other two branches, namely, Janki Choubey and Manki Choubey, who were also joint, were not impleaded in the suit. Fulwanti Kuer had not pre-deceased her husband, who died in the year 1942, rather she died in or about the year 1945 and it was Ram Kali Kuer, who had actually pre-deceased her husband. In fact, Ramkali Kuer had died before the year 1925. So, Kishun Kali Kuer or the plaintiff or defendant no. 2 had no occasion to get any share in the properties held by Bindeshwari Choubey. 5. Trial Court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed issue no. 4, whether Ramkali died in the year 1977 or 1925 and held that she had died much before 1956 i.e. in or about 1925 and not on 30.9.1977. Plaintiff neither inherited any share in the suit properties nor his claim of half share therein was justified. It was also held that the suit was also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, descendants of Janki Choubey and Manki Choubey. Plaintiff neither inherited any share in the suit properties nor his claim of half share therein was justified. It was also held that the suit was also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, namely, descendants of Janki Choubey and Manki Choubey. The suit was, therefore, dismissed. Accordingly, plaintiff preferred present appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this Court. 6. Mr. Debi Prasad, Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that defendant no. 1 himself admitted in Land Ceiling Case NO.5 of 1975-76 in the return filed by him as well as in the petition dated 24.5.1976, (Exhibit-1) that Ramkali Kuer was alive and so his family was entitled to one ceiling unit each for him as well as for Ram Kali Kuer. Plaintiff also produced death certificate (Exhibit-3) to prove that thereafter on 30.9.1977, Ramkali Kuer died and being her daughter's son, plaintiff inherited the share of Ram Kali Kuer in the suit property to the extent of half. It was, therefore, submitted that trial court committed an error in not granting preliminary decree with respect to half share in the suit properties to the plaintiff. 7. Mr. Prasad placed reliance upon a decision in Gopi Chand Arya and others vs. Smt. Bedamo Kuer and others (AIR 1966, Patna 231), wherein it was' held that entry in death register made by a public servant in ordinary course of public duty must undoubtedly have a presumption of correctness attached to it and, therefore, a heavy onus lay upon the party objecting it to displace the presumption of correctness attached to the death register and on that basis submitted that Exhibit 3 ought not to have been disbelieved by the trial court. 8. Reliance was also placed on another decision in Bishwanath Gosain vs. Dulhin Lalmuni and others (AIR 1968 Patna 481), wherein it was held that 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 that who made the entries and what was the source of information. The said register being a public document, presumption of correctness of its entries are there, unless rebutted by other side. 9. The said register being a public document, presumption of correctness of its entries are there, unless rebutted by other side. 9. The instant appeal was earlier heard by a Bench of this Court on 6.5.1998 and exercising power under Order 41 Rule 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure, keeping the appeal pending, this Court remitted the matter on a limited question to take additional evidence by calling for birth and death register from Daltonganj Municipality, on the issue whether documentary evidence suggested that Ramkali Kuer died on 30.9.1977 or not and the appeal was directed to be listed for further hearing after receipt of aforesaid finding from the trial court. 10. Pursuant to said remand order, trial court submitted its report dated 23.2.1989. Birth and death register concerned was not produced by Daltonganj Municipality and a petition on affidavit was filed stating therein that the same was lost. The Executive Officer, Daltonganj Municipality personally appeared before the Court on 18.2.1991. The said Officer was examined and cross-examined by plaintiff. He reiterated that said register was lost and produced counter foil of certificates from which Exhibit-3, death certificate of Ramkali Kuer was issued. It was - marked. Exhibit 3/P Besides that certified copy of Order dated 30.3.1979 passed in L.C.A. Case No. 40 of 1977 was marked Exhibit C/1. It 'related to grant of an unit to a dead person. In the opinion of learned Subordinate Judge those materials were insufficient for recording any fresh finding. 11. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Prasad, Senior Counsel for respondent no. 1 submitted that plaintiff not only failed to produce concerned birth and death register he also failed to examine any witness of village Dusaiya where Ramkali Kuer was residing with defendant no. 1. Any relation of Ramkali was also not examined as witness to prove that she actually died in the year 1977. 12. So far as Exhibit 1 was concerned, Mr. Prasad submitted that no doubt on its basis, Collector under the Land Ceiling Act found that land holders in Land Ceiling Case no. 5 of 1975-76 were entitled to two ceiling units and dropped the proceeding on the basis - that no land was found surplus to be acquired under the Act, but subsequently one ceiling unit granted to Ram Kali was withdrawn on the basis of another petition, Exhibit B filed by defendant no. 5 of 1975-76 were entitled to two ceiling units and dropped the proceeding on the basis - that no land was found surplus to be acquired under the Act, but subsequently one ceiling unit granted to Ram Kali was withdrawn on the basis of another petition, Exhibit B filed by defendant no. 1 on 26.11.1977, wherein it was disclosed that, in fact Ramkali had died much before the birth of defendant no. 1. An explanation was given that as the return as well as petition dated 24.5.1976 were in English language defendant no. 1 could not exactly know the details thereof. 13. Defendant no. 1 in his deposition as D.W. 4 explained his admission made in the return as well as in the petition (Exhibit 1) that he was duped by Nagendra Nath Choubey, who had got the return as well a the said petition prepared and signed by him. It was not read over and explained to him in Hindi and he had put his signature thereon in Hindi. 14. In this regard reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in Basant Singh vs. Janki Singh and others ( AIR 1967 SC 341 ) for the proposition that admission made by the parties in pleadings or other admission cannot be regarded as conclusive in another suit and it was open to the parties to show that it was not proved. 15. In the aforesaid circumstance, it has been submitted that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the court below does not require any interference by this Court in the present Appeal. It is true that defendant no. 1 in the return as well as in the petition, (Exhibit 1) have shown Ramkali to be alive and entitled to one ceiling unit but strangely enough neither Ramkali Kuer appeared in the said proceeding nor made any claim therein. The said proceeding was initiated only against defendant no. 1 and, therefore, in case Ramkali kuer was alive and was entitled to one ceiling unit in the land involved in the said proceeding and had knowledge of the said proceeding because she was living with defendant no. 1, it was essential for her to apply herself for grant of one ceiling unit. She never came forward and remained absent though according to plaintiff, she died thereafter on 30.9.1977. 16. I further find that explanation given by defendant no. 1, it was essential for her to apply herself for grant of one ceiling unit. She never came forward and remained absent though according to plaintiff, she died thereafter on 30.9.1977. 16. I further find that explanation given by defendant no. 1 in his deposition in respect of statement made in Exhibit-1 as also claim on behalf of Ramkali of being a land holder entitled to one unit in the return was reasonable as well as acceptable. Another important aspect of the matter was birth and death register of Daltonganj Municipality maintained under the provisions of Birth and Death Registration Act, 1969, which could not be brought on record. Decision in Basant Singh (supra) related to presumption at entries in such register, but here the register itself was not produced. 17. Here the question was either to accept or not accept the genuineness of Exhibit 3, which in my opinion, was rightly not accepted by the trial court, in absence of the register in question. 18. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed, but without costs.