ORDER

Having perused the judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal No. 542/75 passed on 13.2.1979, we are of the view that the High Court has rightly interfered with the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the trial court as well as by the appellate Court and decreed the suit.

2. The trial Court had wrongly proceeded on the premise of burden of proof on the plaintiff which was corrected by the appellate Court. However, the appellate Court committed another error of not considering the documentary evidence in proper perspective of the respective claims of the parties. Admittedly, the plaintiffs and the first defendant are children of Ahmmad Malmi through his first and second wives respectively. The only claim was with regard to one item, namely, Kochukakkada property. It is seen that the case of the plaintiffs was that it was left undivided to the extent of their 3/4th share therein of their father and that, therefore, they are entitled to partition and separate share. Ex. A-3 is a crucial document in establishing the title of the plaintiffs in the property. In those judicial proceedings it was declared that the defendants in that suit had no title to the trees. It would appear t