Devadoss, J.

1. The petitioner has been convicted under Section 471 read with Section 467 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Madura. His appeal to the Sessions Judge of Madura has been dismissed. The finding is that the petitioner altered the Tamil numerals 27 into 32 in Ex. G a registered deed of partition between him and one Kaliyayi, dated 14th September 1889, and filed it in support of his claim in O.S. No. 165 of 1919 on the file of the District Munsifs Court of Madura taluk. On that finding the appellant has been convicted of using as genuine a forged valuable security knowing it to be forged.

2. The contention of Mr. Vaz for the petitioner is that the petitioner acquired title by prescription to the plot in dispute and that Ex. G was not quite necessary for the support of his title and that he could not have intended to cause wrongful loss to anybody and, therefore, the alteration of the figures in the document does not amount of forgery. I will assume for the purpose of considering this point that the learned District Judge found that the petitioner had a good title to the disputed plot by adverse poss