JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The appellants' (for short "the plaintiffs") instituted Civil Suit No. 127/1 of 2014, before the learned Civil Judge, Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. Through, the afore Civil Suit, the plaintiffs prayed for the making of a declaratory decree, that the name their father is Manga Ram, and, not Sobha Ram. Further more, they pray for, the, making of a declaratory decree, that the apposite records as maintained in the Panchayat, as well as, in the Schools concerned be corrected accordingly. 2. However, defendant No.1/respondent No.1, in its written-statement instituted to the suit, contended that the plaintiffs were born from the loins of one Sobha Ram, and, from the womb of Mehandi Devi. Defendant No.1/Respondent No.1 supported the afore contention, on anvil of a Pariwar Register maintained with the Panchayat concerned. Moreover, the corrections as made in the relevant records, and, theirs disclosing that the plaintiffs are sons of Manga Ram, are contended to be fictitiously made, hence only for the plaintiffs being untenably bestowed with the post retiral and other government benefits arising from the demise of one Manga Ram. 3. The learned trial Court on consideration of oral as well as documentary evidence, as, adduced before it, made a conclusion, that the afore strived declaratory relief, was not amenable for being granted to the plaintiffs, and, consequently the learned trial Court non-suited the plaintiffs. 4. The aggrieved plaintiffs proceeded, to, against the verdict of the dismissal of their suit, as made by the learned trial Court, hence institute Civil Appeal No. 5-N/13 of 2018 before the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. The learned First Appellate Court did not accept, the plaintiffs' appeal, rather it validated the judgment and decree hence dismissing the plaintiffs' suit, as became recorded by the learned trial Court. 5. The aggrieved plaintiffs proceeded to against the concurrently recorded verdicts of both the Courts below, hence institute the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. Even though, the instant RSA was to be admitted on certain formulated substantial questions of law. 5. The aggrieved plaintiffs proceeded to against the concurrently recorded verdicts of both the Courts below, hence institute the instant Regular Second Appeal before this Court. Even though, the instant RSA was to be admitted on certain formulated substantial questions of law. However, all the substantial questions of law as formulated, at pages 10 and 11 of the paper book, are for the reasons ascribed hereinafter, not the befitting substantial questions of law, nor this Court deems it fit, to formulate any substantial question of law, for its proceeding to, after answering them, hence either allow the RSA, and, to consequently annul the concurrently recorded verdicts, as, made respectively by the learned trial Court, and, by the learned First appellate Court, wherethrough the plaintiffs' suit became dismissed, and/ or to dismiss the extant RSA (a) the existence on record of best documentary evidence, as, comprised in the report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory, and which obviously carries the firmest evidentiary vigor, hence for underwhelming the import, if any, of oral and other documentary evidence, as becomes relied upon by both the learned Courts below, in, dismissing the afore declaratory plaintiffs' suit. The availability on record of the afore scientific evidence, arises from this Court on 8.10.2018 making the hereinafter extracted order:- "The issue in question only relates to the paternity of the plaintiff/appellants as they claim themselves to be the sons of one Manga Ram and not Shobha Ram, as otherwise exists in the government records. Therefore, I am of the considered view that since both Shobha Ram and his wife Surto Devi are alive, therefore, the paternity test qua appellants No.1 and 2 be conducted, as is otherwise proposed by the appellants themselves. Therefore, both the appellants alongwith respondents No.3 and 4 are directed to report at State Forensic Science Laboratory Junga on 26.10.2018 alongwith copy of this Order." 6. Further more, on 20.11.2018 this Court has made the hereinafter extracted order:- "Learned Advocate General is present and states that the entire confusion in this Case is on account of non coordination of different departments of the Government and therefore, proceedings proposed to be initiated against the Medical Superintendent, IGMC Shimla be dropped. I find merit in this contention. Accordingly, the proceedings proposed to be initiated against the medical superintendent, IGMC Shimla are ordered to be dropped. I find merit in this contention. Accordingly, the proceedings proposed to be initiated against the medical superintendent, IGMC Shimla are ordered to be dropped. The parties are present in person before this Court and, therefore, blood samples of the appellants, namely, Sukh Ram, Punnu Ram and respondents No.3 and 4 namely Shoba Ram and Surto Devi on the FTA Cards are directed to be taken by the Chief Medical Officer, Zonal Hospital, DDU Shimla, Positively during the course of the day. The samples so collected shall be thereafter taken by LC Mamta No. 895 Women police Station, BCS, New Shimla to FSL Junga during the course of the day and handed over the same to the concerned Officer at FSL Junga. FSL Junga is directed to expedite the submission of the report, which in any event should reach this Court on the next date of hearing. The parties need not be present on the next date of hearing. List on 8.1.2019." 7. In pursuance to the aforemade orders, the SFSL, Junga has submitted its report. However, on 11.6.2019, this Court, on a perusal of the apposite report of the SFSL Junga, made a conclusion that the apposite report, remains reticent with respect to the trite factum whether the plaintiffs are fathered by co-respondent No.3 one Sobha Ram or not. Consequently, on 11.6.2019 this Court had made the hereinafter extracted order:- "The issue of plaintiffs being not fathered by defendant No.3 Shobha Ram, remains not echoed in the report of the FSL. Consequently, the FSL concerned, with the relevant material available with it, shall made the relevant matchings and thereafter it shall, within two weeks, hence make a report, whether the plaintiffs are fathered or not fathered by the defendant No.3 Shobha Ram. List after two weeks." 8. On 3.9.2019, the hereinafter extracted order was passed by this Court. "The learned counsel appearing for the contesting litigants submits that the appellants, as well as co-respondent No.3, Shobha Ram, respectively, have supplied their blood samples, to the Doctor concerned, at the FSL. However, the FSL concerned has not yet reported to this Court whether the appellants are not borne from the loins of Shobha Ram and that they are rather borne from the loins of one Mange Ram. However, the FSL concerned has not yet reported to this Court whether the appellants are not borne from the loins of Shobha Ram and that they are rather borne from the loins of one Mange Ram. The FSL concerned, is directed to ensure that the opinion, on the afore blood samples, be positively, hence recorded within two weeks, and the afore opinion shall, clearly pronounce, whether, the appellants are fathered by one deceased Mange Ram or not or whether they are borne from the loins of one Shobha Ram. List after two weeks." 9. However, before extracting, the, conclusions carried in the report of SFSL, Junga, it is imperative to bear in mind that the respective apposite blood samples, on FTA cards, as, become sent to the SFSL concerned, in closed and sealed parcel(s). A perusal of the report of the SFSL discloses, that one sealed white coloured envelope bearing four seals of Food Inspector labeled as REINKA, became received thereat for analyses. The afore exhibits are the respective blood samples on FTA cards of Sukh Ram, Sobha Ram, Mehandi Devi and Punnu Ram, and, on all the afore parcels became embossed four seals of the Food Inspector carrying thereon(s) the English alphabet(s) (REINKA). Further more, since the report of the SFSL concerned, does through, the mandate of section 292 of Cr.P.C carry a presumption of truth. However given the factum that none of the persons from whom the respective blood samples, on FTA cards became collected rather voice through their respective counsel(s), that their respectively collected blood samples on FTA cards were spurious, and, or do not appertain to their respective persons. Therefore, all afore are estopped from rebutting the report of the SFSL, and, concomitantly are constrained to assign conclusivity thereto. 10. The State Forensic Science Laboratory concerned has placed on record its report. The conclusions carried in the report are extracted hereinafter. " Conclusions: On the basis of the above analysis performed on the aforesaid exhibits, it is concluded that:- I. Mehandi Devi (source of Exhibit-1-1 (blood sample, Mehandi Devi) is the biological mother of Punnu Ram [source of Exhibit-2 (blood sample on FTA card, Punnu Ram] II. Shobha Ram [source of Exhibit -3 (Blood sample on FTA card, Shobha Ram)] is the biological father of punnu Ram [source of Exhibit -2 blood sample on FTA card, Punnu Ram]. III. Shobha Ram [source of Exhibit -3 (Blood sample on FTA card, Shobha Ram)] is the biological father of punnu Ram [source of Exhibit -2 blood sample on FTA card, Punnu Ram]. III. The DNA profiles of Mehandi Devi [source of Exhibit-1-1 (blood sample, Mehandi Devi)] and Sukh Ram [source of Exhibit-1 (blood sample on FTA card, Sukh Ram)] are consistent as those of biological mother and offspring. IV. Shobha Ram [source of Exhibit -3 (blood sample on FTA card, Shobha Ram)] is not the biological father of Sukh Ram [source of Exhibit-1 (blood sample on FTA cared, such Ram]. V. Shobha Ram [source of Exhibit-3 (blood sample on FTA cared, Shobha Ram], Sukh Ram [source of Exhibit-1 (blood sample on FTA card, Sukh Ram)] and Punnu Ram] [source of Exhibit-2 (blood sample on FTA Card, Punnu Ram)] are patrilinealy related." 11. Moreover, when there is no enunciation in the report of the SFSL concerned, that the afore blood samples were tampered with, hence the conclusions carried in the report, are conclusive, and do not support, the argument of co-plaintiff Punnu Ram, that he was not born from the loins of one Sobha Ram rather was born from the loins of Manga Ram. Moreover, he is disclosed therein to be mothered by One Mehandi Devi. Co-plaintiff Sukh Ram though is mothered by Mehandi Devi, however, he is disclosed in the report of SFSL to be not fathered by Sobha Ram. Therefore, co-plaintiff Sukh Ram cannot claim, that he is fathered by Manga Ram, as given, the occurrence of demise of Manga Ram, in the year 2014, thereupon the blood sample(s) on FTA cards of Manga Ram remained uncollected, nor hence could be sent for apposite inter-se matching with the blood samples collected on FTA cards of Sukh Ram. In sequel, for want of the afore best scientific evidence, co-plaintiff Sukh Ram cannot merely on flimsy oral evidence, hence claim to be fathered by Manga Ram. 12. In view of the above, the present appeal stands dismissed, and, the impugned judgment(s) and decree(s) are maintained and affirmed. Records be sent back. No costs.