JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit in O.S.No.1939/2008 dated 05.04.2013 on the file of XVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Court below to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court. Brief facts of the case are as follows: 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs before the Court below that late Desai Suryanarayana Rao and his wife Lakshmamma had no issues and hence, the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao married Jayamma. After the said marriage, the first defendant was born and subsequently, the plaintiffs were born to Desai Suryanarayana Rao and first wife, Lakshmamma. The second wife Jayamma gave birth to defendant Nos.1 to 14. Desai Suryanarayana Rao had acquired the suit schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 14.05.1951, as he was Kartha of Hindu Undivided Family. He passed away on 25.05.1979 leaving behind the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 14 as his legal heirs to succeed to the suit schedule property. During his life time, he had executed a Will dated 28.05.1973 behind the back of the plaintiffs bequeathing the suit schedule property to his second wife, Jayamma and the same is illegal. The said Jayamma in turn executed a Will dated 28.06.1984 creating a life time interest in favour of the first defendant, which is also illegal. In order to defeat the lawful claim of the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos.1 to 14 hatched a conspiracy and jointly executed an absolute sale deed dated 13.07.2007 in favour of 15th defendant, selling there under the suit schedule property. The very execution of the sale deed is also illegal. The plaintiffs are entitled to an equal share in the suit schedule property. The cause of action for the suit arose when the sale deed was executed in favour of 15th defendant. Hence, prayed the Court to grant the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and allot separate share and order to deliver possession and so also order for enquiry into mesne profits. 4. The cause of action for the suit arose when the sale deed was executed in favour of 15th defendant. Hence, prayed the Court to grant the relief of partition in respect of the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and allot separate share and order to deliver possession and so also order for enquiry into mesne profits. 4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the first defendant has filed the written statement and other defendant Nos.2 and 4 to 14 have adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant contending that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, devoid of merits and the suit is barred by limitation. It does not disclose triable or justifiable cause of action. The defendants have denied that the plaintiffs are the sons and daughters of said Desai Suryanarayana Rao born out of the wedlock between Lakshmamma and the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao. The written statement filed discloses total denial of the relationship and also the first marriage of Desai Suryanarayana Rao with Lakshmamma. The said Desai Suryanarayana Rao died on 25.05.1979 and he executed a Will dated 28.05.1973 bequeathing the suit schedule property in favour of Jayamma and in turn, she executed a Will in favour of first defendant on 28.06.1994. It is also their contention that they have already sold the property in favour of 15th defendant. 5. The 15th defendant, in his written statement also denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with Desai Suryanarayana Rao and contend that the plaintiffs cannot derive any right over the suit schedule property, as it was selfacquired property of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and he had right to alienate the same. It is contended that first plaintiff interfered with his possession and hence, he filed the suit in O.S.No.8842/2007 against him. Despite appearance of the plaintiff in the said suit, he did not choose to file the written statement. But, he was astonished to see the summons in pursuance of the suit. He also reiterates the defence of the defendant Nos.1 to 14 with regard to execution of Will in favour of Jayamma and the said Jayamma in turn executed a Will in favour of first defendant. He further contends that the property is the self-acquired property of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and during his life time, he disposed of his property and hence, the plaintiffs will not get any share in the suit schedule property. 6. He further contends that the property is the self-acquired property of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and during his life time, he disposed of his property and hence, the plaintiffs will not get any share in the suit schedule property. 6. The Court below, considering the pleadings of both the plaintiffs and defendants, framed the followings issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the sons of Desai Suryanarayana Rao through his first wife Lakshmamma? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the schedule property is a joint family property of Desai Suryanarayana Rao? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to equal share in the schedule property? 5. To what decree or order?” 7. In support of the claim of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have got examined a witness as P.W.1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P9. The defendants, in support of their defence, have examined two witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D25. 8. The Court below, after considering both oral and documentary evidence and on hearing the learned counsel for respective parties, dismissed the suit. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 9. The main grounds urged by the appellants/plaintiffs in the memorandum of appeal is that the Court below has committed an error in not considering Exs.P1 to P7 namely, Marks card, Voter card, School leaving certificate and ration card of the plaintiffs, wherein the name of their father is shown as Desai Suryanarayana Rao and name of the mother is also shown as Smt. Lakshmamma and further failed to note that said Desai Suryanarayana Rao married one Lakshmamma and as she had no issues at the first instance, the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao had married Smt. Jayamma, who is none other than the sister of Smt. Lakshmamma. After the second marriage, the first wife, Smt. Lakshmamma also gave birth to the plaintiffs. The reasoning of the Trial Court in respect of issue No.1 is unreasonable and cannot be relied upon, in view of the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiffs. 10. After the second marriage, the first wife, Smt. Lakshmamma also gave birth to the plaintiffs. The reasoning of the Trial Court in respect of issue No.1 is unreasonable and cannot be relied upon, in view of the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiffs. 10. It is also contended that with regard to issue No.2, the Court below did not consider both oral and documentary evidence and failed to take note that the presumption is that unless it is proved that there is a partition, the status of joint family continues and hence, the Court below failed to take note of the fact that the suit schedule property was purchased out of the joint family funds and merely because it was registered in the name of said Desai Suryanarayana Rao, the same cannot be termed as a self-acquired property of said Desai Suryanarayana Rao. Hence, it is submitted that the Court below erroneously answered issue No.2 as ‘negative’. 11. It is further contended that the Court below committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. It is contended that the first appellant came to know about the Will executed by Desai Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Jayamma in the year 2007 when the 15th defendant filed a suit for injunction against the first appellant in O.S.No.8842/2007 and immediately thereafter, they filed the suit against the defendants and there is no material before the Court to show that the plaintiffs had the knowledge of sale prior to the suit filed by the 15th defendant and hence, the Court below has committed an error. 12. It is also further pleaded that the Court below also erroneously answered issue No.4 stating that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is a self-acquired property of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. 13. The counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs in his argument vehemently contends that the Court below has committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs have not established the relationship between Smt.Lakshmamma and Desai Suryanarayana Rao as husband and wife and these plaintiffs have born out of the wedlock of Lakshmamma with Desai Suryanarayana Rao. He further contends that two wives of Desai Suryanarayana Rao i.e., Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Jayamma are sisters. He further contends that two wives of Desai Suryanarayana Rao i.e., Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Jayamma are sisters. Initially, said Desai Suryanarayana Rao had married Smt. Lakshmamma and since, there were no issues, he contracted second marriage with Smt. Jayamma. After the second marriage, Smt. Lakshmamma, the first wife gave birth to the plaintiffs. The suit schedule property was purchased in the year 1951 and the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao has died in the year 1979. The documents produced before the Court below i.e., Exs.P1 to P9, namely Marks Card, Pan card, Election ID Card, School Leaving Certificate, Ration Card etc., establishes the fact that the plaintiffs are the children of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Lakshmamma and the Court below failed to consider the same in a right perspective. He further submits that the Court below also committed an error in answering issue Nos.1, 2 and 4 as ‘negative’ in coming to the conclusion that plaintiffs did not prove that they are the sons of Desai Suryanarayana Rao, suit schedule property is not a joint family property and suit is barred by limitation. 14. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would also contend that an application is filed before this Court under Order 41, Rule 27, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to adduce evidence. This Court allowed the said application and directed the Trial Court to record the additional evidence of witnesses and accordingly, the Trial Court has recorded the evidence of witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4. The defendants have not led any evidence, even though an opportunity was given to them and now the said evidence is available before this Court for reconsideration of the matter. He further submits that P.W.3 is none other than the daughter of brother of Desai Suryanarayana Rao. She categorically deposes with regard to the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao having two wives. P.Ws.2 to 4 have also spoken with regard to the marriage of Smt. Lakshmamma with Desai Suryanarayana Rao and now there are ample material before the Court to come to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have established the jural relationship between the parties, the Court below has committed an error in not relying upon the documents Exs.P1 to P9 and proceeded in an erroneous approach. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 15. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 15. The counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants in his argument vehemently contends that the plaintiffs have not proved the contentions taken in the plaint that Smt. Lakshmamma is the first wife of Desai Suryanarayana Rao. The documents which are produced before the Court are not proved and there are no particulars in the plaint with regard to the date of marriage and other details. The documents relied upon before the Court does not establish the relationship. It is also contended that no evidence is led to bring the case under Section 50 of the Evidence Act. There is no any iota of evidence to come to a conclusion that the suit schedule property is a joint family property. The Court below has rightly answered all the issues considering both oral and documentary evidence and dismissed the suit, considering the matter on merits and hence, there are no grounds to interference with the findings of the Trial Court. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents in support of his contention relied upon the judgment reported in I.L.R. 1995 KAR 78 in the case of Khataisaheb Wd. Khadirsaheb Inamdar Vs. Ameersaheb. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that in order to invoke Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is necessary to establish entry relates to particular person Entry not document to prove paternity, Extract only to prove date of birth or death Other evidence to prove particular person born to particular man when that point in issue in the case. Hence, the counsel contends that mere entry does not prove the same, unless other evidence to prove particular person born to particular man is established, the Court cannot come to a conclusion that there is a relationship between the husband and wife and children. The entries are only regarding birth and death of the person concerned and the official concerned is required to make these entries only in the discharge of his official duties. The document cannot be used for any purpose other than to prove the date of birth or death of a particular person mentioned in the extract. On the basis of mere entries in the birth or death extract, the paternity of a person cannot be determined. 17. The document cannot be used for any purpose other than to prove the date of birth or death of a particular person mentioned in the extract. On the basis of mere entries in the birth or death extract, the paternity of a person cannot be determined. 17. The counsel also relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1977 KAR 115 in the case of Thimmakku and others vs. Bandlu Rangappa and others and brought to my notice para No.4 wherein, it is observed that Admission Register pertaining to the sixth plaintiff, which contain recitals that the father of the plaintiffs concerned in the said documents is one B. Thippa Reddy. The Court below has retied upon these documents in support of its findings for the defendants. But, it appears to us that in the absence of the examination of and testimony by some witness competent to speak to matters either as to the knowledge of the relationship or as to the source of the information or statements on which the said recitals came to be incorporated in the said documents, the recitals in themselves cannot be treated as substantive evidence and as admissible on the question concerning paternity purportedly indicated in the said documents as such entries are matters extraneous to what is strictly and enjoined upon the officer to record. 18. The counsel further relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1959 SC 914 in the case of Dolgobinda Paricha –vs- Nimai Charan Misra and Others and brought to my notice para No.6 with regard to Section 50 of the Evidence Act on relevancy of facts and extracted Section 50 of the Evidence Act. Referring Section 50 of the Act, an observation is made that on a plain reading of the Section it is quite clear that it deals that relevancy of a particular fact. It states in effect that when the Court has to form an opinion as to the relationship of one person to another, the opinion expression by conduct as to the existence of such relationship of any person, who has special means of knowledge on the subject of that relationship is a relevant fact. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the Section. 19. The two illustrations appended to the section clearly bring out the true scope and effect of the Section. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment referred (supra), after referring the illustrations made an observation that, in order to enable the Court to infer ‘the opinion’, the conduct must be of a tenor which cannot well be supposed to have been willed without the inner existence of the ‘opinion’. When the conduct is of such a tenor, the Court only gets of relevant piece of evidence, namely, the opinion of a person. It still remains for the Court to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to the factum probandumas to the relationship in question. The counsel referring this judgment would contend that there is no material before the Court even to bring the case within the ambit of Section 50 of the Evidence Act. It is his contention that even the evidence of additional three witnesses, who have been examined before the Court also does not support the case of the plaintiffs since, the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4, who have been examined before the Court were not able to give any details with regard to when Smt. Lakshmamma was living along with the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao and where they were staying, except saying that said Desai Suryanarayana Rao has married Smt. Lakshmamma. Hence, the plaintiffs have not made out any case and hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 20. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs and learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and also keeping in view the contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Court below has committed an error in answering issue No.1 as ‘negative’ in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not established the relationship that they are the children born to Smt. Lakshmamma through Desai Suryanarayana Rao? (ii) Whether the Court below has committed an error in answering issue Nos.2 and 4 as ‘negative’, in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule property is not a joint family property and the suit is barred by limitation and the plaintiffs are not entitled for equal share and it requires interference of this Court? (iii) What order? Point Nos.(i) and (ii): 21. (iii) What order? Point Nos.(i) and (ii): 21. The very contention of the plaintiffs is that, they are the children of Desai Suryanarayana Rao through his first wife Smt. Lakshmamma. It is pleaded in the plaint that Desai Suryanarayana Rao married their mother approximately 80 years ago and out of the said wedlock, they were born. The marriage was performed as per the customs and since, they were not having any issues, second marriage was solemnized with Smt. Jayamma, who is none other than the sister of Smt. Lakshmamma. After the second marriage with Smt. Jayamma, the first defendant was born and subsequently, the plaintiffs herein were also born to Desai Suryanarayana Rao and Smt. Lakshmamma. The defendant Nos.2 to 14 are born to Smt. Jayamma and Desai Suryanarayana Rao. The defendants in their written statement have categorically denied the marriage of Smt.Lakshmamma with Desai Suryanarayana Rao and also denied the relationship of plaintiffs with Desai Suryanarayana Rao. 22. Before considering the issue involved between the parties, this Court would like to consider both oral and documentary evidence available on record. The plaintiff No.1 has been examined as P.W.1 and he reiterates the averments of plaint in the suit and also got marked Exs.P1 to P9. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he claims that he stayed with his father for a period of six months and his father was working as Transport Contractor. It is elicited that he does not know the reason for death of his father but, admits that his father was taking treatment at Geetha Nursing Home, Bengaluru. He claims that he performed the final rites of his father separately. He also admits that his father had suffered burn injuries and he cannot state when his father sustained these burn injuries and also he does not know about performing of Sashtipurthi. It is suggested that, when he passed SSLC, he was aged about 32 years and the same was denied. But, he claims that he was aged about 16 years and he passed the same in the year 1971. He admits that in Ex.P2, he had not mentioned the date and further admits that he only gave the application and obtained the Pan card. He further admits that he himself gave his father’s name and his birth information and his father was an adopted son. He admits that in Ex.P2, he had not mentioned the date and further admits that he only gave the application and obtained the Pan card. He further admits that he himself gave his father’s name and his birth information and his father was an adopted son. He also claims that he cannot state how many properties his grand father was having. He further admits that he cannot state which are all the ancestral properties. It is suggested that Desai Suryanarayana Rao married only Smt. Jayamma and defendant Nos.1 to 14 are the children of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the same was denied. It is suggested that Desai Suryanarayana Rao has provided shelter to him and hence, he is claiming that he is the son of said Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the same was denied. 23. In view of allowing the application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by this Court, other witnesses namely, P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined. P.W.2 is one B.S. Radha Krishnan. In his evidence, he states that he know Desai Suryanarayana Rao and he had two wives namely, Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Jayamma. The plaintiffs are the children born to Lakshmamma. He know the plaintiffs and their father since, 1959, by that time, said Lakshmamma was no more. At that time, he was residing at No.3, 2nd Main, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. The said Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the plaintiffs were residing at No.168, 2nd Cross, Chamarajpet, Bengaluru. He used to visit his house and he know that the plaintiffs are the children of said Desai Suryanarayana Rao. The said Desai Suryanarayana Rao had two houses wherein, the plaintiffs and himself was residing are the rented premises and they vacated the same long back. In the year 1959, the marriage of the first plaintiff was performed by his father and Smt.Jayamma. He attended the marriage. The said Smt. Jayamma and her children also attended the said marriage which was performed at Lakshminarayana Choultry, Gavipura, Guttalli, Bengaluru. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that, he is very close to the plaintiffs. He is not having any document to show that he was residing at Chamarajpet. It is suggested that after he left the Chamarajpet, he was not having any connection with the plaintiffs and the same was denied. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that, he is very close to the plaintiffs. He is not having any document to show that he was residing at Chamarajpet. It is suggested that after he left the Chamarajpet, he was not having any connection with the plaintiffs and the same was denied. He admits that he cannot specifically state in which village the Desai Suryanarayana Rao was staying. He also admits that he cannot state in which hospital, he took the treatment. He also admits that he cannot state where the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao was having the suit schedule property in question. He is not having any marriage invitation card and also cannot state, who are all have attended the marriage. It is suggested that he was not having any personal acquaintance with Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the same was denied. It is suggested that Desai Suryanarayana Rao was not residing at Chamarajpet and in any of the houses and the same was denied. He admits that he cannot state how many brothers and sisters are there to said Desai Suryanarayana Rao. It is suggested that, except defendant Nos.1 to 14, Desai Suryanarayana Rao was not having any legal heirs and the same was denied. It is suggested that, in order to help the plaintiffs, he is deposing falsely before the Court and the same was denied. 24. The plaintiffs have also examined one witness as Smt. Mangala as P.W.3, who claims to be the daughter of brother of Desai Suryanarayana Rao. It is her evidence that, Smt. Sundaramma and Seetharamaiah had five sons namely, Krishnamurthy, Srinivasamurthy, Desai Suryanarayana Rao, Ramanna and Narayanaswamy and two daughters namely, Thangamma and Seshamma. She is the daughter of Narayanaswamy. All the above persons are no more. It is her evidence that she know the Desai Suryanarayana Rao, who is her father’s elder brother. He had two wives namely, Smt. Lakshmamma and Smt. Jayamma. Plaintiffs are children born to Smt. Lakshmamma. She was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, she states that Desai Suryanarayana Rao was residing at Chamarajpet, 2nd Cross and also at N.R. Colony. But she cannot give specific details in which year, they were staying in the said houses. It is her evidence that Desai Suryanarayana Rao was staying in Chamarajpet in a rented house and was also staying in his own house at N.R. Colony. But she cannot give specific details in which year, they were staying in the said houses. It is her evidence that Desai Suryanarayana Rao was staying in Chamarajpet in a rented house and was also staying in his own house at N.R. Colony. It is also her evidence, after vacating the rented house at Chamarajpet, he went to his own house at N.R. Colony, which was purchased. It is elicited that she has not personally seen Smt. Lakshmamma but, claims that she has seen the photographs. She also admits that she cannot state when Smt. Lakshmamma had passed away. It is elicited that she is very close to plaintiffs. It is suggested that she is financially very weak and these plaintiffs were helping her and the same was denied. It is elicited that, she is working as Cook. It is suggested that she is working as Cook in the house of the plaintiffs and the same was denied. It is suggested that she is not having any acquaintance with the said Desai Suryanarayana Rao and only to help the plaintiffs, since they were financially helping her, this false affidavit is filed and the same was denied. It is suggested that Smt. Jayamma is the only wife of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and defendant Nos.1 to 14 were the legal heirs of them and there was no any second wife and the said suggestion was denied. 25. P.W.4 is one Sri N. Balasubramanian. In his affidavit evidence, he states that he is a Notary public and also practicing as an Advocate. He know Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the plaintiffs are the children born to his first wife Lakshmamma. He knows the plaintiffs. He used to visit the house of plaintiffs during the life time of their father, as his father was friend of his father. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he cannot state when Lakshmamma passed away. It is suggested that he has never seen said Lakshmamma and the same was denied. He further admits that he is not having any document for having served as Notary to Desai Suryanarayana Rao and Lakshmamma. He admits that he is close to plaintiffs. He admits that he cannot say in which state, Desai Suryanarayana Rao was staying. He also cannot state what are all the diseases, he was having and in which hospital, he took the treatment. He admits that he is close to plaintiffs. He admits that he cannot say in which state, Desai Suryanarayana Rao was staying. He also cannot state what are all the diseases, he was having and in which hospital, he took the treatment. It is suggested that there was no occasion for him to see Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the same was denied. It is suggested that he is having close acquaintance with the plaintiffs and hence, he has filed affidavit and giving false evidence before the Court and the same was denied. He also admits that he cannot state in which house, Desai Suryanarayana Rao was staying. 26. The defendants have examined two witnesses as D.Ws.1 and 2. Now let this Court consider the evidence of D.W.1. In the evidence of D.W.1 in the form of an affidavit, he reiterated the contents of the written statement. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that, he does not know how many children are there to his maternal grand father. It is suggested that while purchasing the property, money of his father and maternal uncle of his father was used to purchase the property. At that time, objection was raised and the said objection was over ruled. It is suggested that even though he is aware of the fact that Lakshmamma is the wife of Desai Suryanarayana Rao, he is denying the relationship and the said suggestion was denied. 27. The defendant No.15, who was examined as D.W.2 in his evidence reiterates the contents of written statement that he purchased the property for a valuable consideration and the said property is a self-acquired property of Desai Suryanarayana Rao, who bequeathed the said property in favour of Jayamma and Jayamma in turn bequeathed the property in favour of first defendant and thereafter, he has purchased the property. He got marked Exs.D1 to D22. He admits in the cross-examination that before executing the Will favour of Shantha in the year 1984, Jayamma has stated as to how she got the said property. It is suggested that the said property was purchased out of the family income by Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the same was denied. It is suggested that Desai Suryanarayana Rao was having two wives and he denies that he is not aware of the same. It is suggested that the said property was purchased out of the family income by Desai Suryanarayana Rao and the same was denied. It is suggested that Desai Suryanarayana Rao was having two wives and he denies that he is not aware of the same. It is suggested that suit schedule property is the property of Joint family and the same was denied. This witness is further cross-examined and got marked the documents Exs.D23 to D25. In the further cross-examination, he admits that during the year, 1974 and 1984, while executing the Will, he was not present. 28. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence, P.W.1 reiterates the averments of plaint in the suit and also got marked Exs.P1 to P9. He was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he claims that he stayed with his father for a period of six months and his father was working as Transport Contractor. It is elicited that he does not know the reason for death of his father but, admits that his father was taking treatment at Geetha Nursing Home, Bengaluru. He claims that he performed the final rites of his father. He also admits that his father had suffered burn injuries and he cannot state when his father sustained these burn injuries. He admits that in Ex.P2, he had not mentioned the date and further admits that he only gave the application and obtained the Pan card. He further admits that he himself gave his father’s name and his birth information and his father was an adopted son. He also claims that he cannot state how many properties his grand father was having. He further admits that he cannot state which are all the ancestral properties. 29. Considering the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that he is not aware for what reason, his father passed away and the evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court. However, he relied upon the documents Exs.P1 to P9. No doubt, the said documents discloses the name of the father as Desai Suryanarayana Rao, it is admitted by him that Ex.P2 does not disclose the date. It is further important to note that his Election Identity Card is issued in the year 2003 and the name of the father is mentioned as Desai Suryanarayana but not Desai Suryanarayana Rao. No doubt, the said documents discloses the name of the father as Desai Suryanarayana Rao, it is admitted by him that Ex.P2 does not disclose the date. It is further important to note that his Election Identity Card is issued in the year 2003 and the name of the father is mentioned as Desai Suryanarayana but not Desai Suryanarayana Rao. Ex.P4 is also the statement of marks card of plaintiff No.1 and in this document also, the father name is mentioned as Desai Suryanarayana. Ex.P5 is the marks card of one Rama Murthy D.S. and father name is mentioned as Desai Suryanarayana Rao. Exs.P6 and P7 are the ration cards issued in the year 2001 and 2002, these documents does not contain the name of the father which are issued in the name of Ramamurthy and D.S. Jagannath. 30. The plaintiff No.1 mainly relies upon the document Ex.P8 issued by Vanivilas Hospital with regard to birth of a girl child on 27.04.1944 to Lakshmamma and Desai Suryanarayana Rao. The trial Court did not consider this document on the ground that the author of the document has not been examined and also original register of the hospital where the entry was made was not summoned. Apart from that, the plaintiffs have also examined the witnesses P.Ws.2 to 4. P.W.2 claims that he is the friend of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and he was having acquaintance with the family. He also states that Desai Suryanarayana Rao and himself were staying at Chamarajpet. He further states that he knows the plaintiffs and their father since, 1959. But at that time, the said Lakshmamma was no more. However, he claims that in the year 1959, the marriage of the first plaintiff was performed by his father and Smt. Jayamma. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, he admits that he is very close to the plaintiffs and also states that though they were staying from 1940 to 1970 at Chamarajpet, he is not having any document. The other witness is P.W.3, who in her evidence states that she is the daughter of Narayanaswamy, who is the elder brother of the Desai Suryanarayana Rao. The other witness is P.W.3, who in her evidence states that she is the daughter of Narayanaswamy, who is the elder brother of the Desai Suryanarayana Rao. In the cross examination, she also admits that she is very close to the plaintiffs and Desai Suryanarayana Rao was staying at Chamarajpet and also in his own house at N.R. Colony and she was born in the year 1968 and he has not seen Lakshmamma. It is to be noted that P.W.2 states that she has acquaintance with the plaintiffs and their father since 1968, but at that time itself, Smt. Lakshmamma was no more. None of these witnesses i.e., P.Ws.2 to 4 state that they have seen the Lakshmamma residing along with Desai Suryanarayana Rao. P.W.2 says he knows Desai Suryanarayana Rao from 1959 but by that time the said Lakshmamma was no more. P.W.3 has also not seen the said Lakshmamma. 31. It is also important to note that plaintiffs have not placed any material before the Court that though they claim that the marriage of Lakshmamma was performed 80 years ago, at least, in order to prove the fact that she was the first wife of Desai Suryanarayana Rao, no document is produced evidencing the fact that both Desai Suryanarayana Rao and Lakshmamma have lived together and the documents relied upon at Exs.P1 to P9 does not support the case of the plaintiffs, except mentioning the name of the father as Desai Suryanarayana Rao in some of the documents i.e. in statement of marks card. 32. The judgment of this Court in Khataisaheb Wd. Khadirsaheb Inamdar’s case is clear that in order to invoke Section 35 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it is necessary to establish entry relates to particular person Entry not document to prove paternity, Extract only to prove date of birth or death Other evidence to prove particular person born to particular man when that point in issue in the case. The plaintiffs have not placed any such material before the Court and there is no documentary proof with regard to the fact that they are the husband and wife and none of the witnesses have spoken to the effect that they have attended their marriage. The plaintiffs have not placed any such material before the Court and there is no documentary proof with regard to the fact that they are the husband and wife and none of the witnesses have spoken to the effect that they have attended their marriage. Apart from that, the document Ex.P8 is also not proved by summoning the original register before the Court and that is only a communication with regard to a girl child has been born to Lakshmamma and Desai Suryanarayana Rao. If the original document is summoned by examining the persons, who are having acquaintance with that document, then, it would have been helpful for the plaintiffs to prove their case but, no such exercise has been made. 33. It is also pertinent to note that in the cross-examination of D.W.1 with regard to the relationship between the plaintiffs with the said Lakshmamma and Desai Suryanarayana Rao, nothing is elicited from D.W.1 and there is no effective cross-examination with regard to establishment of the paternity. However, he has been cross-examined only with regard to the property suggesting that the property is purchased out of the joint family funds and the same was denied. In order to prove the fact of paternity, no question is posed to D.W.1 and made any efforts to elicit the answer from D.W.1. D.W.2 is only a purchaser of the property, who purchased the property from the defendants and in the cross-examination of D.W.2 also, nothing is elicited and only suggestions are made that the plaintiffs are the children of Smt. Lakshmamma and Desai Suryanarayana Rao. 34. The counsel appearing for the respondents also relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Thimmakku’s case wherein it is held that there must be some material before the Court, in order to prove the paternity and further observed that, it appears to us that in the absence of the examination of and testimony by some witness competent to speak to matters either as to the knowledge of the relationship or as to the source of the information or statements on which the said recitals came to be incorporated in the said documents, the recitals in themselves cannot be treated as substantive evidence and as admissible on the question concerning paternity purportedly indicated in the said documents as such entries are matters extraneous to what is strictly and enjoined upon the officer to record. But in the case on hand, none of the witnesses have spoken with regard to incorporating the name of said Desai Suryanarayana Rao as father of the plaintiffs and none of the witnesses have spoken before the Court that they have attended the marriage and they lived as husband and wife. 35. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Lakshmamma is the first wife of Desai Suryanarayana Rao and they had no issues, hence, the second marriage was contracted with Jayamma. P.W.2 says he attended the marriage of plaintiff which was performed by Desai Suryanarayana Rao and Jayamma, but no document is produced. They have not produced any document to atleast show that Desai Suryanarayana Rao and Lakshmamma stayed together. To that effect also, no document is placed. In the absence of any cogent material before the Court, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove the very fact of paternity and they are born to Lakshmamma and Desai Suryanarayana Rao. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Court below in not accepting Ex.P8 and coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved their case, particularly, issue No.1. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit to reverse the findings of the trial Court. 36. Once, the plaintiffs have failed to prove the very issue No.1, the question as to the property which is described in the schedule is joint family property or self-acquired property and whether the plaintiffs have any right in respect of the suit schedule property does not arise. However no document is also produced to show that the same is joint family property. The sale deed is in the name of Desai Suryanarayana Rao. It is also important to note that in the year 1973 itself, he executed will in favour of Jayamma as per Ex.D23 on perusal and Ex.D23 also, there is no reference with regard to first wife and children. It is also important to note that it is the claim of the defendants that Desai Suryanarayana Rao has executed the Will in favour of his wife Jayamma and Jayamma in turn executed the Will in favour of first defendant and thereafter, the property was sold in favour of defendant No.15 and produced documents to that effect. 37. It is also important to note that it is the claim of the defendants that Desai Suryanarayana Rao has executed the Will in favour of his wife Jayamma and Jayamma in turn executed the Will in favour of first defendant and thereafter, the property was sold in favour of defendant No.15 and produced documents to that effect. 37. Regarding the suit is barred by limitation is concerned, the Court below committed an error, since it is the case of the plaintiffs that they came to know about the suit when they received the suit summons filed by the 15th defendant and defendants have also not proved that the plaintiffs had the knowledge prior to that. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence I do not find any material to reverse the findings of the Trial Court and even the evidence subsequently recorded in respect of P.Ws.2 to 4 will also not come to the aid of the plaintiffs to come to the other conclusion. Under the circumstances the appeal is liable to be dismissed since there is no merit in the appeal. 38. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following : ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed