Concurrent findings of fact cannot be overturned on a doubtful admission or misread documents in civil jurisdiction disputes.

A second appellate court should not disturb concurrent findings of fact on a misreading of documents or on an alleged admission that is not clear, unambiguous, and duly proved. Here, the earlier plaint did not conclusively admit tenancy, the prior suit had been dismissed in default, and no written statement, issues, or confrontation with the alleged admission occurred. The revenue entries and daily diary report were also misread, so the finding that the defendants were trespassers could not be displaced. Civil jurisdiction had to be tested from the plaint averments and relief claimed, not from a later factual conclusion. The High Court's interference was unjustified and the decree for the plaintiff was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the concurrent findings of fact on the basis of the alleged admission in the earlier plaint and two revenue documents, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction could be denied on the ultimate factual conclusion reached by the High Court.

Analysis: The earlier plaint did not amount to a clear admission that the defendants were tenants. The expression used was capable of more than one meaning and could not, by itself, conclusively establish tenancy. An admission must be clear, unambiguous, and proved in accordance with law; it may also be explained by the maker. The previous suit had been dismissed in default, no written statement or issues were framed, and the plaintiff was not confronted with the alleged admission. The High Court also misread the revenue entries and the daily diary report, which led it to upset two concurrent factual findings that the defendants had failed to prove tenancy and were trespassers. Jurisdiction had to be determined from the plaint averments and the nature of the relief claimed, not from the High Court's final factual conclusion after disturbing those findings.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact. The alleged admission and the documents did not establish tenancy, and the civil suit remained maintainable on the plaint case.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment and order were set aside, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff-appellant was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A second appellate court should not disturb concurrent findings of fact on the basis of a misreading of documents or an alleged admission that is not clear, unambiguous, and duly proved, and jurisdiction must be tested from the plaint and the relief claimed rather than from an ultimate factual finding displacing the plaint case.

---