Concurrent findings of fact are generally not subject to appeal unless based on a misdirection of law. In construing title documents, antecedent evidence may be used to identify the property but cannot be used to contradict the express terms of the settlement.

Lord Shaw:-

This is an appeal from a decree of the High Court at Patna which affirmed a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Arrah. The question involved in the appeal relates to the extent or area of a mahal called Naubarar.

The judgments below, in so far as they are judgments of fact, were concurrent judgments, and Mr. De Gruyther very properly, on behalf of the respondent, in timated that he would object to the com petency of the appeal on that ground.

Their Lordships allowed the case to be opened, and it has been opened with great clearness and fulness by Sir George Lown des. He has explained the point bearing upon what is the true nature of the deli verance pronounced by the High Court and the Court below, and he has main tained that, notwithstanding an apparent concurrence in findings of fact, there still remains as after explained a case which can legitimately be brought, as matters of law, under the well-known Indian prac tice, before their Lordships.

Their Lordships, before entering upon the merits of the question, desire to ex press their satisfaction with the judgment of the High Court as expressed by Mr. Justice Das in the High Court, which, for fulness of statement, for clear articula tion of the points in issue, could not be excelled.

Their Lordships note from that judg ment exactly what was the nature of the duty which the learned Judges considered to be cast upon themselves in the con struction of the title which is in issue in this case.

It is to be further noted that not only are there two concurrent judgments, but there was an application for review, and a third judgment was pronounced thereon confirmatory of the preceding judgments.

If it appears that underlying findings in fact there are questions of law on which the findings proceeded or that there is a case that the Judges misdirected them selves, then the rule as to concurrent find ings not being the subject of appeal does not apply - to the exclusion of such grounds of law as are alluded to.

It is important to see whether any case has emerged of this character. It is ac cordingly necessary to quote the following : passage, which covers the question as to the ambit of their duty as they considered it in the construction of the title to this landed estate :-

"I took the view," says the learned Judge, "that in order to understand what was actually settled" (that is to say the extent of the land actually contained within the title as such) "it was necessary to deal with certain documents on which the settlement was based, not to contra dict any of the terms of the settlement, but to identify the thing demised. I con sidered all these documents" (and then he names them) "and came to the conclusion that what was actually demised was the tract of land bounded on the north by the plot No. 920 as shown in the Kistwar map of 1840, which formed the southern boun dary of Gangbarar. As regards the south ern boundary, there is no dispute that it consists of certain villages mentioned in the plaint."

It was not disputed in the argument before their Lordships that what had been scrupulously in view of the Judges, accord ing to their statement, was a correct ap preciation of the limits and functions of a Court in construing a document of title submitted for its consideration. The learn ed Judges properly said that it was not the duty of the Court, and would have been contrary to their duty, to admit any ante cedent documents for the purpose of con tradicting the terms of the settlement made. What they had to do was what the learned Judge says they did, use any antecedent documents and maps solely for the purpose of identifying the thing demised.

In their Lordship's opinion there is no ground for the suggestion that the Judges of the Courts below failed in this duty or introduced illegitimate considerations into their view upon the titles and the facts. They having done that which was strictly their duty, their Lordships are of opinion that what remained was a ques tion of fact, and