https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303102 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. en-us Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 04 Jul 2022 18:20:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303102 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303102