The court's observations during an inspection should not contradict witness testimony and should be limited to appreciating the evidence. An appeal is competent when the decree of the District Court involves a question respecting property of the value of Rs. 1,000.00 or more.

( 1 ) BANTHI Lal and Ram Sagar sons of Padam filed a suit in July. 1964 against Kirpal Singh for posses- sion by ejectment of Kirpal Singh from land comprised in Khasra No. 1100 measuring 5 Biswas and situated in village Sangla. The plaintiffs alleged that Kirpal Singh defendant illegally encroached upon the said land with effect from Kharif 1962 and constructed a house, a cattle shed and a grain store thereupon. The defence set up by defendant Kirpal Singh was that the land in suit was given by the father of the plaintiffs to the mother of the defendant 40 or 50 years back for the construction of a house and it was she who took possession of the land and construct- ed the structures. The land was, according to the defendant, Kirpal Singh, given to his mother because she was the sister of the father of plaintiffs Banthi Lal and Ram Sagar. It appears that Sari Lal was, in the first instance, impleaded as a pro forma defendant but by ordir dated 6th October, 1964. he was transposed as a plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :-

"1. Has the defendant Kirpal Singh illegally occupied the land comprising Khata/khatauni No. 5/15 Khasra No. 1100-Min measur- ing 5 Biswas, situated in village Sangla and constructed house, cat- tle shed and grain store without the consent of the plaintiffs ? 2. In case issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiffs, whether Kirpal Singh defendant is liable to ejectment from the land, house, cattle shed and grain store ? 3. Whether the land in suit was donated by the father of the plaintiffs to the mother of the defendants on account of relationship and whether Kirpal Singh defendant is occupying the land in suit as owner for the last 40 or 50 years ? 4. Whether the defendant is entitled to compensation on account of the land, house, cattle shed and grain store in case of his ejectment ? 5. To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled in this suit ?"

( 2 ) BY judgment dated 21st May, 1963, the learned Subordinate Judge, Kalpa, dismissed the suit holding that defendant Kirpal Singh was the absolute owner of the land in dispute and, therefore, not liable to ejectment. Aggrieved by the said decision, Banthi Lal and Ram Sagar filed on appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Mahasu. In the said appeal Sari Lal was impleaded as a respondent. The appeal was dismissed by the learned District Judge on 16th October, 1967. The plaintiffs have now appealed to this Court. The plaintiffs in support of their claim as to the ownership and possession of the land relied on the various revenue papers. Exhibit P. F. /p. G. is a document relating to the settlement proceedings. Plaintiff Banthi Lal in his evidence proved this document but it appears that no exhibit mark was put thereon. According to this settlement, Padam, father of plaintiffs Banthi Lal and Ram Sagar, was in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute. Again, Exhibit P/d is a Jamabandi for the year 1958-1959 in which plaintiffs Banthi Lal and Ram Sagar ar3 shown as owners in possession Exhibit P/c is Girdawari with respect to the said land for the period 10th June, 1960 to 3rd June, 1963. In this document plaintiffs Banthi Lal and Ram Sagar are shown as owners in cultivatory possession till October, 1962. It is stated therein that after 28th October, 1962, Kirpal Singh son of Narotam Dass came into possession by reason of relationship. Besides this, the plaintiffs produced oral evidence in support of their case. Banthi Lal plaintiff appeared as a witness and stated that the plaintiffs were the owners in. possession of the suit land and that from 1962 to June, 1963 he (Banthi Lal) was away to Dehra Dun, his brother had gone to Kalpa and in their absence defendant, Kirpal Singh illegally took possession of the land and constructed a house on it. He also said that the mother of the defendant had constructed the house 20 or 25 years ago and having made that statement clarified it by saying that the mother of t