Improperly admitted evidence does not require retrial when independent evidence supports the decree and the result is unaffected.

Improper admission of evidence did not justify a retrial where the decree was supported by independent evidence and the judgment below rested on grounds unaffected by the inadmissible material. In second appeal, the Court would not re-examine sufficiency of evidence as a factual issue, and remand was unnecessary because the plaintiffs' title and possession were otherwise proved by witness evidence. The defendants failed to establish their nimhowla patta, as the lower court found no reliable or satisfactory proof. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: Whether the case should be remanded for retrial because certain evidence had been improperly admitted, or whether the decree could stand on the basis of independent evidence.

Analysis: Section 167 of the Evidence Act permits the Court to disregard the improper admission of evidence where sufficient independent evidence justifies the decision. In second appeal, the Court cannot re-examine the sufficiency of evidence as a question of fact. A remand is unnecessary where the lower court has clearly reached its conclusion on grounds independent of the inadmissible material. The defendants bore the burden of proving their nimhowla patta, and the Subordinate Judge had found that no reliable or satisfactory evidence had been adduced to prove it. The plaintiffs' title and possession were otherwise established by witness evidence, so the impugned material did not affect the result on the merits.

Conclusion: The remand was held to be unnecessary, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Improperly admitted evidence does not require retrial on second appeal where the decree is supported by independent evidence and the judgment below rests on grounds unaffected by the inadmissible material.

---