Proof of minority in civil disputes depends on authentic school records, and second appeal cannot disturb concurrent findings lightly.

School leaving records may be admissible, but they prove age only when their authenticity and the source of the date of birth are duly established. Here, the plaintiff failed to prove the certificate through a competent witness or show that the photocopy was a certified public document, so it did not establish minority or invalidate the registered release deed. The commentary also restates that in second appeal, interference with concurrent findings of fact is confined to substantial questions of law and is not justified unless the findings are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law; the High Court's reappreciation of evidence was therefore improper.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the school leaving certificate proved the plaintiff's minority and the invalidity of the release deed executed in 1963; (ii) whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

Issue (i): Whether the school leaving certificate proved the plaintiff's minority and the invalidity of the release deed executed in 1963.

Analysis: The certificate was not proved through the school official who made the entry or through any witness competent to prove the source of the date of birth. A photocopy of the certificate was produced, but it was not established as a certified copy of a public document. The Court held that entries in school records may be admissible in evidence, but their probative value depends on proof of authenticity and the person on whose information the entry was made. The plaintiff also failed to plead fraud, coercion, or undue influence in relation to the registered release deed, and the burden was on him to prove that he was a minor when the deed was executed.

Conclusion: The school leaving certificate did not prove minority, and the release deed was not shown to be invalid.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, interference in second appeal is confined to substantial questions of law. Concurrent findings of fact can be disturbed only if they are perverse, based on no evidence, or contrary to law. Since both the trial court and the first appellate court had reached a reasoned conclusion on the evidence that the plaintiff had failed to prove his date of birth and minority, the High Court was not justified in reappreciating the evidence and substituting its own view.

Conclusion: The High Court wrongly interfered with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the High Court was set aside, the concurrent factual findings of the courts below were restored, and the plaintiff's claim stood rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In second appeal, concurrent findings of fact cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or illegal, and school records do not prove age unless their authenticity and source are duly proved.

---