JUDGMENT Harries, C.J. - This is a petition for revision of orders of the Court below convicting the Petitioner of offences under secs. 426 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. Under sec. 426 the Petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 40 and in default of payment to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. Under sec. 447 no separate sentence was passed. The case arises out of a family dispute relating to two plots of land, plots Nos. 83 and 86, in the survey record. According to the complainant, the Opposite Party, he was in sole possession of these two plots. On August 19, 1948, he alleges that the Petitioner together with others carrying lathis forcibly entered upon these plots and tore down fencing and damaged certain trees. A complaint was, therefore, made for criminal trespass and mischief. 2. Shortly, the defence was that the plots in question were the joint property of the complainant and members of the Petitioner's family and that all the Petitioner did was to take steps to prevent the complainant from fencing off this property to establish a right to exclusive possession of the same. 3. The first point the Magistrate had to consider was, who was in possession of these two plots. The deciding factor is not title but possession; but frequently a finding as to title can help in arriving at a conclusion as to who is in possession. The case for the complainant was that these two plots together with other land formed part of an estate which was partitioned in 1948 and that in that partition the complainant had been allotted Plots Nos. 83 and 86. The defence denied any such partition and their case was that these plots together with other land still remained joint. The question whether a partition took place or not was, therefore, of some importance and the complainant actually Called a witness P. W. 7 who stated that he was one of the persons who actually carried out the partition. In cross-examination, however this witness made a most devastating statement. According to him in the partition the complainant was only allotted one plot, whereas five plots were allotted to members of the Petitioner's family. If that evidence be true then quite clearly Plots Nos. 83 and 86 could never have been allotted to the complainant. In cross-examination, however this witness made a most devastating statement. According to him in the partition the complainant was only allotted one plot, whereas five plots were allotted to members of the Petitioner's family. If that evidence be true then quite clearly Plots Nos. 83 and 86 could never have been allotted to the complainant. The learned Magistrate gets over the difficulty by saying that this statement of P. W. 7 must have been a slip of the tongue, because he had said otherwise in examination-in-chief. The purpose of cross-examination is to elicit the truth by testing a witness evidence, and damaging admissions in cross-examination cannot be got rid of merely by stating that they were mere slips of the tongue. This statement of P. W. 7 however it is looked upon throws considerable doubt upon the case for the complainant that there ever was a partition or that if there was, he was allotted Plots Nos. 83 and 86. 4. The learned Magistrate also considered the judgment of another learned Magistrate in a criminal case for assault which the complainant brought against the mother and certain other relations of the Petitioner. How this criminal case and findings in it could be relevant to the investigation in the present case I am wholly unable to understand. The judgment that criminal case could only be in evidence to establish two facts; the being that there was such a case second being that in the case the accused were or were not convicted as the be. The learned Magistrate seems to think that the finding of the other Magistrate the criminal case amounts to a declaration that the complainant was in exclusive possession of these plots. Civil Courts in proper proceedings may grant declaration title and the findings of such Civil Courts may operate as res judicata between the parties. But the findings of a Magistrate in an assault case so far from operating as res judical a between the parties are not relevant even in any other dispute between the parties. Such findings are wholly inadmissible. As I have stated, the learned Magistrate has laid great stress on the findings of the assault case and that in itself would be quite sufficient to vitiate the Magistrate's judgment in the present case. 5. The learned Magistrate viewed the property in question some seven months after this occurrence. Such findings are wholly inadmissible. As I have stated, the learned Magistrate has laid great stress on the findings of the assault case and that in itself would be quite sufficient to vitiate the Magistrate's judgment in the present case. 5. The learned Magistrate viewed the property in question some seven months after this occurrence. A Judge or a Magistrate may view a locality to enable him to predate the evidence. But he can decide nothing as a result of what he himself sees. In short what he himself sees is not evidence in the case and for a very good reason; the Judge or Magistrate cannot be cross-examined. The Judge or Magistrate, however, can visit a place in order to appreciate the evidence which has been given. 6. The learned Magistrate in this case noticed certain features, the sprouting of trees and the existence of some platform from which he made certain deductions. He is not entitled to make any deductions whatsoever from what he himself sees and which was not referred to by any other witness. 7. It seems that the Petitioner has filed a civil suit in connection with another plot, Plot No. 87, which lies on the north of Plots Nos. 83 and 86 and is contiguous with these two plots. The claim is that Plot No. 87 is ejmali. The learned Magistrate seems to think that this civil suit has been filed as a counterblast to the declaration which the complainant had already obtained at the hands of the Magistrate that he was in sole possession of these plots. I would like to remind the learned Magistrate that the proper forum for these disputes is a Civil Court which can grant a declaration and not a Criminal Court which can make no declaration of any kind. 8. The suggestion of the defence is that the complainant erected fencing around these two plots in order to create evidence for himself in the civil suit pending. If there was evidence in the civil suit that Plots Nos. 83 and 86 were fenced off that would go some way to defeat the Petitioner's case that they were joint. The defence case was that in order to prevent this creation of evidence they entered upon the property which was held by them jointly with the complainant and demolished the fencing. 83 and 86 were fenced off that would go some way to defeat the Petitioner's case that they were joint. The defence case was that in order to prevent this creation of evidence they entered upon the property which was held by them jointly with the complainant and demolished the fencing. If that be the true state of affairs I cannot see how the Petitioner could be convicted of criminal trespass or mischief. If the land was joint the complainant had no right whatsoever to fence the plots and the Petitioner would be fully entitled to enter upon the place and remove the fences. No question of trespass could arise because the Petitioner was as much entitled to enter upon these plots as the complainant, and in any event I do not think it could be said that he had any of the necessary intents. The intent, if the defence is true, was to remove manufactured evidence and not to annoy the complainant. Be that as it may, it is not a trespass by one joint tenant to enter upon property held jointly. Further, if the complainant had no right to erect this fencing, I do not think how it could be said that removing it would amount to mischief. It was removed to prevent the creation of false evidence if the defence version be true. Whether trees were damaged or not it is difficult to say. But I do not think that criminal charge would lie at the instance of one co-sharer because the other co-sharer might have damaged slightly some trees. 9. Upon the evidence in this case I am not satisfied that the complainant proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was in exclusive possession of these two plots. The record-of-rights is against him and in a Civil Court that would raise a formidable presumption against the complainant which he would have to rebut. It must be remembered that the record-of-rights is a document which is the result of prolonged and exclusive enquiries in which all interested in the land are entitled to their say and are entitled to urge their case. It is only after such exhaustive enquiries that the record-of-rights is published and it is because the whole process is so exhaustive and thorough that the law gives a presumption of accuracy to any entry contain therein. It is only after such exhaustive enquiries that the record-of-rights is published and it is because the whole process is so exhaustive and thorough that the law gives a presumption of accuracy to any entry contain therein. The record-of-rights is therefore, a very important piece of evidence which cannot be dismissed in the summary way in which the learned Magistrate dismisses it from his consideration in this case. Another important factor is that the entry in the record-of-rights had been in existence for about ten years and no attempt had been made by the complainant to have it altered, if the entry was inaccurate. This is also a factor which must be considered. The learned Magistrate seems to have thought that the complainant had not taken Steps to rectify the register because of carelessness or negligence. But the fact that this record has been allowed to remain unchallenged for ten years is also a strong evidence against the complainant. 10. In arriving at his conclusions it appears me that the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration matters which are wholly inadmissible and irrelevant such as previous findings of a brother Magistrate. He has also failed, I think, to appreciate the weight which should he attached to pieces of evidence such as the record-of-rights that admit of no doubt whatsoever. For these reasons I do not think that the decision of the learned Magistrate can be sustained. 11. The judgment of the learned Sessions judge in revision is riot very helpful. He merely states that the Magistrate had the points to be considered in mind and having gone through the record he sees no ground for interference. 12. The order of the learned Magistrate must, therefore, be set aside and the question arises whether there should be a new trial. It appears to me that this dispute can only be satisfactorily decided in a Civil Court and a suit in which the points are involved is already pending. I do not think that a Criminal Court is a Court which can decide these difficult questions and that being so, I do not order a re-trial. In the result, therefore, this petition is allowed, the convictions and sentence are set aside and the Petitioner is acquitted. The rule is made absolute.