Teunon and Richardson, JJ.
1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. The original owner of the property it appears was one Jungu Sarkar. The plaintiffs in the suit, the respondents before us, were the sons of his daughter, Tarabai Bibi. The defendant No. 2 was another daughter, while the principal defendant, who is the appellant before us, was the son of Jungu Sarkar. The parties, it may be observed, are Mahomedans.
2. With regard to defendant No. 2 it was urged in the Courts below, that her right to a share had been extinguished by adverse possession. Both Courts have decided against the appellant on that point, and with respect to that, the only matter that is urged before us is that the District Judge is wrong in saying that there is evidence to show that some of the respondents at times participated to some extent in the fruits of the property. It was suggested that such evidence as there is, bears only upon the case of the plaintiffs. But that, we find from the judgment of the first Court, is not correct. The value of the evidence of course is a matter not for us to consider in second appeal. That contention of the appellant therefore fails.
3. With regard to the plaintiffs it was contended on behalf of the appellant that their mother Tarabai Bibi had predeceased their father Jungu Sarkar, and that the sons consequently are not entitled to any share. That question has also been decided against the appellant, and the only point taken here in that connection is, that both the Courts below have erred in admitting in evidence the certified copy of an entry made in a register of deaths kept at the local thana. It is contended that the said register is not a 'public document' within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act. That question again turns upon the further question whether the said register is an official book or register, and the entry made was made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty, within the meaning of Section 35 of the Evidence Act.
4. It is not suggested before us that this register is kept under any special provision of law enjoining upon the Police the maintenance of this register. But it appears that it is in fact a register kept by Police officers at thanas under a rule made by the Local Government, and to be found in the Bengal Police Manual. It cannot, we think, be said that in making entries in a register thus prescribed the Police officer is not acting in the discharge of his official duty. But it is further urged that in this particular case it has not been shown by what particular Police officer the entry was made. That we think is of no importance, inasmuch as the rule casts the duty upon some Police officer to be appointed for the performance of that duty by the officer in charge of the thana. Under the provisions of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, we are entitled to presume that the entry was properly made. We may observe here that the view we take as to this being a public document and that the entry in such register is admissible in evidence, is supported by the decision of a Divisional Bench of the Madras High Court reported in Ramalinga Reddi v. Kotayya (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad. 26. True there the register in question was one kept by village officials under the orders of the Board of Revenue, but in principle the two cases are not distinguishable.
5. For these reasons we dismiss this appeal with costs.