ORDER : Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against order of the appellate court dt 17.7.2013 passed in Appeal No.28/2013, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent has been allowed. 2. The brief facts noticed are that the appellants Pawan Yadav and Meenakshi Yadav, are brother and sister and claim to be son and daughter of Shri Satvir Singh Yadav, and both were born in New Delhi as per birth certificate placed on record, however, since the family was disturbed on account of the father Shri Satvir Singh Yadav being an alcoholic and relations between their parents were strained, both the children were sent to Jaipur for study purposes. It appears that the name of their father in the school record came to be written as Shri Sajjan Singh Yadav and noticing this fact, a suit for declaration was filed before the trial court and the trial court after taking into consideration the evidence on record and particularly the birth certificate of the appellants as also the statement/cross examination of mother Smt. Chinta Devi, who asserted that name of the father is Satvir Singh Yadav and not Sajjan Singh Yadav and taking into consideration the above as well as other material placed on record, accepted the prayer and held that name of the father be corrected to be Satvir Singh Yadav as against Sajjan Singh Yadav and the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, was directed to correct the name in their record. 3. An appeal came to be filed by the respondent Secondary Education Board before the first appellate court, and the appellate court reversed the finding reached by the trial court, which has been assailed herein. 4. This second appeal was admitted on following questions of law :- (1) Whether the first appellate court has committed an error in mis-interpreting the evidence on record and in recording the perverse findings as regards the paternity of the appellants? (2) Whether the first appellate court has committed an error in ignoring the public documents produced by the appellants and in not holding that the appellants were the children of Shri Satvir Singh Yadav and not of Shri Sajjan Singh Yadav? 5. (2) Whether the first appellate court has committed an error in ignoring the public documents produced by the appellants and in not holding that the appellants were the children of Shri Satvir Singh Yadav and not of Shri Sajjan Singh Yadav? 5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that ample evidence has been brought on record to show and justify that the name of father is Satvir Singh Yadav may be on account of inadvertence name of Sajjan Singh Yadav has been mentioned and, therefore, declaration was sought. Learned counsel contends that the birth certificate of both the children observes against the names of mother & father being Smt. Chinta Devi/Satvir and this certificate of birth is of the year 1992. Learned counsel also contends that this is the prime document to prove and justify as to who is the father of the appellants. Not only that, other evidence is also available to justify and to claim that father of the appellants is Satvir Singh Yadav and the appellate court has overlooked these material evidences and has merely gone on the version that the appellants themselves mentioned name of Sajjan Singh Yadav and contends that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the name of father be shown to be Satvir Singh Yadav. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently contended that the evidence brought on record has rightly been considered by the first appellate court and needs no interference because mother of the appellants has also admitted that in her presence the application form for admission of the children was filled and at-least she was well aware of the name of her husband then too, name of Sajjan Singh Yadav was shown in the school record. Learned counsel also contended that Satvir Singh Yadav was not made party by the appellants and, therefore, the relief is rather against Satvir Singh Yadav and the Secondary Education Board, Rajasthan, does not come at all in picture and Satvir Singh Yadav being not made a party, the appellant court was well justified in coming to the said conclusion and supported the order of the first appellate court. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced and perused the material available on record. 7. I have considered the arguments advanced and perused the material available on record. In my view, the appeal deserves to succeed for the reason that the birth certificate clearly proves and shows, as observed earlier that against the names of mother & father it is mentioned as Smt. Chinta Devi/Satvir, resident of 162, Gram herein above this has been registered in the records of the Union Territory of Delhi on 3.10.1992, on or about the birth of the appellants. A certificate has also been placed on record about the voter's identity card issued by the Election Commission in the name of Smt. Chinta Devi showing Satvir Singh Yadav as her husband. 8. Statement of Chinta Devi was also recorded and she has clearly asserted not only by filing an affidavit but in cross examination also she had stood to her examination by clearly observing that Shri Satvir Singh Yadav is her husband. The mother also stated that since the husband was alcoholic and they have strained relations, therefore, both the children were sent from Delhi to Jaipur to study and to progress in life further and inadvertently name of the father may have wrongly or inadvertently been mentioned as Sajjan Singh Yadav rather everywhere it is shown as S.S. Yadav and S.S. Yadav would also mean Satvir Singh Yadav and not only Sajjan Singh Yadav. An affidavit was filed by Shri Sajjan Singh Yadav and who has been examined later also, stating that both Pawan Yadav and Meenakshi Yadav are children of his brother and since his brother was alcoholic and was not in good mental condition, therefore, the children could not study in Delhi and, therefore, he called both the children for further pursuing the studies. It is also asserted by Shri Sajjan Singh Yadav that his children were also studying in the same school and since he himself is S.S. Yadav and in the school record of his children, name of S.S. Yadav was mentioned, therefore, the school teachers may have mentioned full name to be Sajjan Singh Yadav rather than Satvir Singh Yadav and he in the cross examination also stood to the testimony of the affidavit given earlier. 9. 9. In my view these evidences were sufficient to hold that the name of father is Satvir Singh Yadav rather than Sajjan Singh Yadav and merely on account of some inadvertence at one particular point of time if Sajjan Singh Yadav has been mentioned, it could not be made a base that it could not have been corrected later-on when other ample evidence are there to justify and prove that Satvir Singh Yadav to be their father. In my view, the order of the appellate court is unjust and perverse for the reasons assigned herein above and the order of the trial court, who has taken into consideration all the evidence and material is rather more reasoned and the order of the trial court is just and proper and is required to be upheld. 10. Accordingly, the questions of law framed by this court are answered in favour of the appellants and against the respondent Board, and the respondent Board is directed to correct the name in the records to show and hold Pawan Yadav as son of Satvir Singh Yadav and Meenakshi Yadav as daughter of Shri Satvir Singh Yadav. 11. The appeal is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs