1. This appeal raises a question of interpretation of a document, Ext.A1. The appellant would contend that Ext.A-1 creates a lease. The respondent contends that it creates only a licence. The suit for recovery of property was resisted by the defendant contending that Ext.Al creates a lease and even if it is assumed to be a commercial lease, since the defendant has made certain constructions in the premises, be it entitled to claim the benefit of S.106 of the Kerala Lard Reforms Act. The trial court, after considering the evidence adduced in the case and after analysing the various terms of Ext.A-1, found that the defendant's case of lease is unsustainable. The trial court found that Ext.A-1 evidences a licence and to, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree. The defendant filed an appeal. The appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. New the defendant appeals.

2. Though affirmation by the first appellate court, of a crucial fact found by the trial court insulates the verdict with no inerrability, but since absolute objective certainty is impossible in the decision process in this imperfect world, there is plain and perfect justification en pract