JUDGMENT

Stuart, J. - The learned Counsel for the appellants has taken me very carefully through he whole facts of the case, but he has not been able to satisfy me that the appeal can succeed in face of the findings of face. He took exception, in the first place, to what he suggest d was an improper admission of evidence by the lower Appellate Court. The learned District Judge wrote: "One thing was wanting in the lower Court which, to some extent, is responsible for the lower Court's judgment, i.e., khasra showing corresponding plots. As it was a matter of Revenue Records I have accepted it now and accept the contention that the sir plots in question really appertained to the old khewat No. 16."

2. The learned Counsel would argue from these words that the learned District Judge had admitted improperly in evidence, in appeal, documents which had been rejected by the Trial Court. He has not, however, been able to point out to me that the learned District Judge admit ed any document in evidence which the Trial Court had rejected, and in so far as the admissibility of the khasras go, they would all be admissible in themselves as certified copies of public documents. With regard to the co