JUDGMENT C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.599 of 1989. The suit in O.S.No.599 of 1989 had been filed by Usha Devi against two defendants, Subbu Lakshmi and Karuppaiah seeking partition of the suit property and for future mesne profits. The suit property for which partition was sought was nanja and punja lands in Alapalacheri Village, Tirumangalam taluk, Madurai district. 2. According to the plaintiff, she was the daughter of Ayyachamy through his first wife Pandiammal. They were married in 1972. She was born on 23.05.1975. They divorced the marriage through customary divorce in 1978. After that Pandiammal married another man as a husband. The plaintiff was brought up by Ayyachamy. He married for a second time the first defendant Subbulakshmi. The second defendant Karuppaiah was born to Ayyachamy and Subbulakshmi. It was further stated that Ayyachamy died in 1985. Thereafter, the plaintiff was driven out of the parental house by the first defendant. It was stated that the suit properties were self acquired properties of Ayyachamy. Under these circumstances, she filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of undivided 1/3 share in the suit properties. 3. The first defendant filed written statement. She denied the fact that the plaintiff was the daughter of Ayyachamy. She denied that Pandiammal was the first wife of Ayyachamy. She also denied that there was customary divorce between Ayyachamy and Pandiammal in 1978. She further denied that she was the second wife of Ayyachamy. She claimed to be the only wife of Ayyachamy. She further claimed that the second defendant was her son. She further stated that Pandiammal had actually married Subburaman. She claimed that the plaintiff had no right to claim partition in the suit property. She stated that the suit should be dismissed. 4. The second defendant filed a written statement claiming to be the only son of Ayyachamy. He claimed to be the only heir of Ayyachamy. He also stated that Pandiammal had married Subburaman in 1973. He stated that the suit should be dismissed. 5. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tirumangalam, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues: (i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of a 1/3 undivided share in the suit property and whether she is entitled to future mesne profits? (ii). Whether the claim that the plaintiff was not born to Ayyachamy is true? (iii). 5. The learned Principal District Munsif, Tirumangalam, on the basis of the pleadings, framed the following issues: (i). Whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition of a 1/3 undivided share in the suit property and whether she is entitled to future mesne profits? (ii). Whether the claim that the plaintiff was not born to Ayyachamy is true? (iii). To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?? 6. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and Pandiammal as PW-2. The first defendant examined herself as DW-1 and Seenivasan@Subburaman as DW-2 and Nagarajan as DW-3. The plaintiff marked Ex- A1 to A5. Ex.A1 dated 23.04.1986 is the birth certificate of plaintiff. Ex.A2 dated 15.06.1990 is the transfer certificate of the plaintiff given by her school. Ex.A3 is the voters list for the year 1975 and Ex.A4 is the voters list for 1994. Ex.A5 was the advocate notice issued to the defendant. On the side of the defendants Ex.B1 and Ex-B2 were marked. Ex.B1 is the death certificate of Ayyachamy, dated 11.03.1999. Ex.B2 is the receipt given by the temple in Tirumangalam for marriage between Subburaman and Pandiammal. 7. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Principal District Munsif, Tirumangalam, by Judgment dated 23.07.1999, first examined the second issue namely, whether the plaintiff was the daughter of Ayyachamy. He considered the evidence of PW-2, Pandiammal, who stated that she was married to Ayyachamy in 1972 and she further stated that in 1978 she separated from him. He further considered the evidence of DW-2 who claimed to have married Pandiammal. DW-2 had two names, Subburaman and Seenivasan. 8. The learned Judge found DW-2 was originally named Subburaman and when he joined the army, he gave his name as Seenivasan and use to sign as Seenivasan. However, in Ex.B2 said it to be a Marriage Certificate, he had signed as Subburaman Rediyar. The learned Judge also found that there could not have been any marriage between Pandiammal and DW-2, since all of them belonged to same village and it would have been highly improbable that Pandiammal could married a person from the same village even the man she first married was there. 9. He disbelieved the evidence of DW-2 and also Ex.B2. He also noted that there were no independent witness to speak about the marriage said to have taken place between Pandiammal and DW-2. 9. He disbelieved the evidence of DW-2 and also Ex.B2. He also noted that there were no independent witness to speak about the marriage said to have taken place between Pandiammal and DW-2. He also observed that DW-3 who produced Ex.B2, Marriage Certificate, admitted that he did not have direct knowledge of Ex.B2. He also considered Ex.B1, the Birth Certificate of the plaintiff, where the father’s name given as Ayyachamy, and Ex.B2 school Transfer Certificate where again her father’s name given as Ayyachamy. Even in the voters list, Ex.A3 and A4, Ayyachamy and Pandiammal were given the same address at Door No. 94/A. 10. He finally held that the plaintiff was daughter of Ayyachamy and consequently, answered issue no.2 in favour of the plaintiff. He also observed that DW-1, the first defendant had admitted that she did not know anything about Ayyachamy before her marriage. He finally held that the evidence pointed out to the fact that Ayyachamy and Pandiammal had actually married and that the plaintiff was their daughter. In view of the above findings, he decreed the suit as prayed for. With respect to mesne profits, he directed petition to be filed under Order XX Rule 12 of CPC. The defendants had filed A.S.No.166 of 1999. This came up before the II Additional Subordinate, Madurai. 11. The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai re-examined the evidence on record and framed the following points for determination:- “(i) Whether the plaintiff was born out of the wedlock between Ayyachamy and the plaintiff's mother? (ii) Whether the marriage between Ayyachamy and PW-2 was ended with customary divorce? (iii) Whether marriage had taken place on 16.09.1973 between PW-2 and DW-2. (iv) Whether the appeal should be allowed?” 12. The learned II Additional Subordinate Judge by Judgment dated 30.11.2000, took up issue nos.1, 2 and 3 together. He pointed out the fact that the plaintiff had stated in her plaint that she was born on 23.05.1975 but in Ex.A1 and A2 her date of birth was given as 25.03.1975. He, therefore, stated that since the plaintiff had not given correct date of birth, inference should be drawn against her. He also examined the voters list and found that there was Ayyachamy Konnaar and Pandiammal and also another Ayyachamy and another Pandiammal in two different houses. He disbelieved that the said Ayyachamy, Pandiammal were the parents of the plaintiff. He, therefore, stated that since the plaintiff had not given correct date of birth, inference should be drawn against her. He also examined the voters list and found that there was Ayyachamy Konnaar and Pandiammal and also another Ayyachamy and another Pandiammal in two different houses. He disbelieved that the said Ayyachamy, Pandiammal were the parents of the plaintiff. He also stated that the year of death of Ayyachamy was not properly given in the plaint. He relied on Ex.B2 and evidence of DW-2 and held that PW-2 Pandiammal and DW-2 Subburaman @ Seenivasan were actually married. Holding the above, he allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 13. The plaintiff has filed present second appeal challenging the said Judgment. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the lower appellate court is right in holding that the marriage has not been solemnised between Ayyachamy and Pandiammal, mereby relying on the document marked as Ex.B2, which has been elaborately discussed and rejected by the trial court? 2. Whether the lower appellate court is right in dismissing the suit stating that the marriage between Pandiammal and Ayyachamy has not been proved by the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief even assuming that the marriage has not been proved an illegitimate daughter is entitled to a share in the property?” 14. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.PT.S.Narendra Vasan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.S.Vellaichamy, learned counsel for the respondents. The parties shall be referred as plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendants are the respondents. 15. O.S.No.599 of 1989 had been filed by Usha Devi seeking partition and separate possession of undivided 1/3 share in the suit properties. The suit properties were nanja and punja lands in Alapalacheri village, Tirumangalam taluk, Madurai District. According to the plaintiff, her mother Pandiammal and her father Ayyachamy were married in the year 1972 and she was born in the year 1975. Subsequently, owing to her mother's differences with her father there was customary divorce effected between the two of them. Thereafter, her mother married another person and left the family. The plaintiff was bought up by her father. As evidence A1 and A2 were produced. Ex.A1 is the Birth Certificate and Ex-A2 is the school transfer certificate of the plaintiff. 16. Subsequently, owing to her mother's differences with her father there was customary divorce effected between the two of them. Thereafter, her mother married another person and left the family. The plaintiff was bought up by her father. As evidence A1 and A2 were produced. Ex.A1 is the Birth Certificate and Ex-A2 is the school transfer certificate of the plaintiff. 16. It is not the case of the defendants that both Ex-A1 and Ex-A2 are fabricated or forged documents. The only ground that the Lower Appellate Court Judge raised to reject Ex.A1 and A2 is that in the plaint, the plaintiff had given her date of birth as 23.05.1975, whereas, in Ex.A1 and A2 it had been given as 25.03.1975. The explanation given by the plaintiff was that the age given in the plaint is typographical error, I am able to understand that explanation. The digits 25 and 23 had been interchanged and similarly the digits 3 and 5 have also been interchanged. The similarity between the two dates is quite striking and there is every possibility of a typist making this error which is quite common. At any rate, the certificates cannot be rejected. The age given in the certificates cannot be disputed. 17. Ex.A1 had been issued by a competent authority, namely, the Department of Registration, Government of Tamil Nadu. The name of the father and mother have been clearly given as Ayyachamy and Pandiammal. The address had also been given as Nagaiyapuram. The date of registration was 30.03.1975. The date given in the plaint is naturally a typographical error since, the date given was 23.05.1975 and that could not have been registered on 30.03.1975. The place of birth had also been given. The name of the Taluk had also been given. The registration number also been given. 18. Ex.A2 is in confirmity with Ex.A1. The community of the plaintiff is given as Yadava community in the voters list. Ayyachamy has been described as Ayyachamy Konaar and it is common knowledge that Konar signifies Yadava community. The plaintiff's name has been given as Usha Devi even the personal mark of identification also been given. The admission number of the student had also been given. It has also been signed by the Headmistress of Kasthuribai Gandhi Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School. 19. Again the defendants have not stated that this Transfer Certificate Ex.A2 is a forged or fabricated document. The admission number of the student had also been given. It has also been signed by the Headmistress of Kasthuribai Gandhi Corporation Girls Higher Secondary School. 19. Again the defendants have not stated that this Transfer Certificate Ex.A2 is a forged or fabricated document. These two certificates are sufficient to hold that Usha Devi is the daughter of Ayyachamy. The evidence of DW-2 is totally unconvincing. During evidence, he described himself as Subburaman @ Seenivasan. 20. During his cross examination he admitted as follows: IMAGE 21. However, in Ex.B2, which he claims to be the marriage certificate with PW-2, the names of the bride groom was given as Subburaman Rediyar. This certificate was produced by DW-3 who was the accountant in Sri Kumarasamy Koil, Tirumangalam. He did not have direct knowledge about Ex.B2. During cross examination he admitted as follows: IMAGE 22. The above evidence clearly shows that the witness was not confident about the exhibit which he produced. The reliance placed by the first Appellate Court Judge on Exs.A3 and A4 cannot be appreciated since they are not documents which evidence either marriage or paternity. Even otherwise in Ex.A3, a perusal shows that the names Ayyachamy and Pandiammal are very common names and they are reflected again and again. As a matter of fact, there is Ayyachamy son of Subbiaya Konaar and Pandiammal daughter of Ramalinga Rediyar in SL.No.588, 589 in Ex.A3 and in SL.No.10 and 11 in Ex.A4. The same names and again reflected twice in SL.No.10 and 11 & 20 and 21 in Ex.A4. At any rate, Exs.A1 and A2 very clearly shows that the plaintiff is the daughter of Ayyachammy. The trial Judge had carefully analyzed the entire evidence and had given firm finding on facts. 23. In view of the same, I hold that the Lower Appellate Court was wrong in relying on Ex-B2 and in holding that the marriage between Ayyachamy and Pandiammal was not solemnized. Ex.B2 had been rejected by trial Court by very convincing reasons. There was a doubt about the identity of the bride groom also because of the fact that the signature varied in Ex.B2. 24. The first Appellate Court also erred in holding that marriage between Pandiammal and Ayyachamy had not been proved, completely over looking the documents filed by the plaintiff. In view of the above facts the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court requires interference. 24. The first Appellate Court also erred in holding that marriage between Pandiammal and Ayyachamy had not been proved, completely over looking the documents filed by the plaintiff. In view of the above facts the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court requires interference. Accordingly, the Judgment and Decree of the first appellate Court in A.S.No.166 of 1999 dated 30.11.2000 is set aside and the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.599 of 1989 dated 23.07.1999 is confirmed and the suit is decreed. 25. The second appeal is allowed, however, in the circumstances, without costs.