This is an appeal from the judgment in appeal of the District Judge of Coimbatore, dated the 31st March, 1945, confirming the judgment and decree, dated the nth April, 1944, of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore in O.S.No. 130 of 1943. The suit out of which the appeal arises, O.S. No. 130 of 1943, was brought for redemption of the suit properties on the footing of a mortgage, Ex.‘P-3 dated 4th June, 1850, executed by one Samanna Goundan in favour of one Krishna Ayyar and one Venkataramana Ayyar and three other persons. Kandaswami Goundan, an undivided son of Samanna Goundan, sold the equity of redemption in the suit properties to the plaintiff on the 29th September, 1938, for Rs. 100. The suit has some remarkable features. Nothing is heard of the suit mortgage between the alleged date of the execution of Ex. P-3, 4th June, 1850, and the sale to the plaintiff on 29th September, 1938. The suit properties, however, had been frequently dealt with by way of mortgage and sale by Krishna Ayyar and Venkataramana Ayyar and their successors for considerable amounts until in 1918 they were sold to the father of the first defendant for Rs. 1,10,000. By the date of suit, it is reasonable to assume that they were worth several lakhs. The plaintiff relied on two other documents, Exs. P-1 and P-2. Ex. P-1 purports to be a patta issued on 6th July 1847, by the karnam of the village, one Sinnathambi Pillai, in favour of the two persons, Krishna Ayyar and Venkataramana Ayyar. The properties covered by the patta are the suit properties and are expressed to be 3,400 kulis in extent (something over 40 acres), and the assessment payable in respect of the land is stated to be Rs. 315. Ex. P-2 is a sale deed executed on the 14th November, 1849, in respect of the properties covered by Ex. P-1 by Krishna Ayyar and Venkataramana Ayyar in favour of Muthu Goundan for a consideration of Rs. 75. Reference has already been made to Ex. P-3. It purports to be a mortgage of the suit property covered by Exs. P-1 and P-2 by Samanna Goundan, the son of Muthu Goundan, in favour of Krishna Ayyar and Venkataramana Ayyar and three other persons, Athappa, Velappa and Karuma Goundan. It is in evidence, it may be stated here, that the successors of these three Goundans disclaimed all knowledge of the mortgage,. Ex. P-3. The first defendant was the only contesting defendant. He claimed the property absolutely under the sale deed of 1918, and maintained that the three documents, Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3 were not genuine. Both the lower Courts agreed with the contentions of the first defendant and have held that Exs. P-1, P-2 and P-3 are not genuine. This is a second appeal against concurrent findings of fact by the lower Courts and the findings, therefore, unless satisfactory reason is shown, cannot now be challenged by the plaintiff-appellant.

It has, however, been argued by Mr. Subba Rao for the appellant that the findings of the lower appellate Court are vitiated by mistakes of fact, by an error in law by reason of a failure properly to apply the provisions of section 90 of the Evidence Act and by the improper inclusion and exclusion of evidence. In order to appreciate the contentions for the appellant, it will be convenient to summarise the reasons as stated in his judgment which weighed with the learned District Judge in holding that the three crucial documents were not genuine. He pointed to the improbable character of the appellant’s case as a whole, especially the inadequate consideration for the sale deed, Ex. P-2, and the mortgage, Ex. P-3, in respect of property which was assessed to pay annually Rs. 315 as land revenue, and to the fact that nothing was ever heard of the three documents between the alleged dates of their execution and the sale to the plaintiff of the equity of redemption some 90 years later. On matters of detail tending to show that the documents were not genuine, he was of opinion (1) that the document, Ex. D-2, showed that Sinna