JUDGMENT 1. This rule was granted in a proceeding under sec. 145, Cr. P. C. in which the Magistrate made a local inspection and also recorded evidence and decided that the land in dispute was in the 1st party's possession. The 2nd party obtained this rule. Calling on the District Magistrate and on the opposite party to show cause why the decision should not be set aside on two grounds; (1) that the Magistrate acted without jurisdiction in holding a local enquiry himself and basing his decision on the result of the enquiry; and (2) that, assuming that he had himself jurisdiction to make a local enquiry, he was not authorized to make an enquiry in the manner disclosed in his judgment. 2. Both these grounds have been argued at length before us, the applicants contending in support of both grounds and the opposite party contending that the Magistrate had jurisdiction to make an enquiry himself and to use the knowledge, which he obtained from a personal sight of the spot, towards understanding and elucidating the evidence. It is undisputed, however, that the Magistrate did not merely view the spot and take notice of its position, features and condition, but also listened to various statements and arguments there and formed a conclusion thereon; whereas, as far as we are informed, there is nothing on the record to bear out the statements and conclusion, except what the Magistrate has written in his judgment. 3. The Magistrate has remaked in his judgment that there was much animus between the two parties, and the evidence on both sides had been strained very badly and had been so badly supplied that it would not be safe to rely on it; hence he made the local enquiry. He did not however use the local enquiry for the purpose of making himself familiar with the local facts, in order that he might test the evidence adduced by both sides at the trial; but it appears from his judgment that he discarded the evidence altogether and decided the case upon what he saw, heard and inferred at the local enquiry, about all of which (as already mentioned) there appears to be nothing in the record. We do not think that a decision so arrived at was legally found and we think that the Magistrate erred materially in his jurisdiction in deciding the case in that way. We do not think that a decision so arrived at was legally found and we think that the Magistrate erred materially in his jurisdiction in deciding the case in that way. We therefore make the rule absolute and set aside the order.