In a second appeal, the High Court can review findings of fact by the lower appellate court if there was non-consideration of material evidence, including the statutory presumption arising from the record-of-rights, and if the lower appellate court erred in accepting the plaintiff's version without addressing the reasons given by the trial court for rejecting it.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff has alleged that the disputed land belonged to the minor, Satyendra Nath Patra. The latter's father acted as his guardian and for the benefit of the minor son, sold the disputed property to him on the 7th Dec. , 1953, for Rs. 250/ -. After making the purchase he has been possessing the property. But in the R. S. Khatian there is a wrong entry that the property belongs to his father and that land has vested in the State. The plaintiff's father did not make any purchase, The suit is for an injunction on declaration of the plaintiff's title and for a further declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights is incorrect.

( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 1 is the State of West Bengal. A written statement was filed denying the plaintiff's allegations. It has been stated that defendant No. 2, plaintiff's father, was a big raiyat and he made a Benami purchase. He did not retain the suit-land. That property has vested in the State.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif disbelieved the plaintiff's version in all respects and has held that the plaintiff had no money to make the purchase. That purchase was not a genuine one. The plaintiff was not in possession of the property. The dakhilas filed by him were interpolated. The plaintiff has no title. The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff went up in appeal. The appellate Court decreed the suit by allowing the appeal. Hence this appeal by the State.

( 4 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the State that the decision of the learned Additional District Judge is incorrect. The facts and the law were not properly discussed. The important items considered by the learned Munsif were ignored by that court. The plaintiff has no title or possession.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent has stated that the fate of this appeal is concluded by the findings of fact arrived at by the learned Additional District Judge. The findings are binding on the High Court in second appeal. The case of Ramchandra v. Ramalingam in decided by Gajendragadkar, J. has been cited to support this contention.

( 6 ) THE first question arises whether there was non-consideration of material evidence by the learned Additional District Judge. In the case of Damadilal v. Parashram, A. C. Gupta, J. has stated that where there was non-consideration of material evidence by the first appellate Court, the High Court can enter into questions of fact in second appeal. The most important fact is that the entry in the R. S, Khatian is against the plaintiff. The statutory presumption attached to the record- of-rights was not considered by the first appellate Court. In the well-known case of Shankar Rao v. Sambhu reported in (1941) 45 Cal WN 57 : (AIR 1940 PC 192 ). Sir George Rankin has stated that where in arriving at the finding of fact, the final Court of fact omitted to consider the pre sumption arising out of the provisions of Section 135j of the Bombay Land Revenue Code (corresponding presumption under Section 103b of the Bengal Tenancy Act), such finding is not binding on the High Court in second appeal. The question of possession was elaborately dealt with by the learned Munsif. But that finding has been reserved in one line by stating that the evidence of the P. Ws. was accepted. No reason was assigned why that Court rejected the reasons given by the learned Munsif in this respect. The question of benami was also cryptically discussed and stated that since the defendant failed to establish the plea of benami, the same could not be accepted. The learned Munsif stated that the plaintiff filed only two dakhilas, which were interpolated. This item was not at all discussed by the first appellate Court. The other important points were dealt with by the learned Munsif, but not considered by the learned Additional District Judge. Hence for non-consideration of material evidence, the findings of fact cannot be accepted by this Court in Second appeal.

( 7 ) THEN about the merits. The p