Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 100

Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 100-Conclusions arrived at by lower appellate Court based on corroborated evidence -Appraisal of evidence not shown to be wrong-.)Vo interference in second appeal.      JUDGMENT   This appeal arises out of a suit, which has had a chequered career.   Plaintiff instituted a suit in the year 1946 for declaration of his title to certain plots of land and for recovery of possession in respect of the same, some portion of which was alluvial land formed on a dried up river bed.   Learned Munsif, who tried the suit, decreed the same against the contesting defendants and against certain defendants on compromise, and ex parte against the rest.   Against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsif some of the defendants preferred an appeal which was heard and disposed of by a learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Thereupon the said defendants preferred an appeal which was heard and disposed of by a single Bench of this Court, which affirmed the decree passed by the Courts below, except in respect of the three plots of land as specified in the plaint itself, namely, plots Nos. 653, 651 and 30. It was argued before the aforesaid Bench in this Court that the defence evidence with regard to the said plots was corroborated by a kabuliyat produced by the defendants, namely, that which has been marked as Exh. E. This document was further corroborated by entries in the settlement record which has been marked as Exh. K. This Court directed that the appeal be reheard by 'the appellate Court .below only in respect of plots Nos. 653, 651 and 30. The rest of the decree, as stated above, was affirmed and the appeal was dismissed with regard to plots other than those mentioned above.   The appeal was re-heard by a Subordinate Judge of Faridpur. Learned Subordinate Judge, after discussing the relevant evidence in this case, came to the conclusion that defendant's evidence with regard to the aforesaid three plots was corroborated both by the registered kabuliyat marked Exh. E and by the…