JUDGMENT :- This second appeal has arisen from the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge, Manipur in his appeal case No.65 of 1952 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for preemption against the defendant on 13-10-52. The plaintiffs suit was dismissed with cost by the Munsiff on 5-4-52. The plaintiff Khoudon Singh, the present respondent brought a suit en 26-2-51 for preemption in the court of Shri Thambal Singh, Munsiff against the alleged vendor and vendee on payment of Rs.450/- its price as cited in the deed of exchange executed on 19-2-51. He sought to exercise his right for pre-emption on the ground that his Inkhol is adjacent to the alienated northern portion of the Inkhol in dispute under patta No.53/103 I.E.T., disposed of by the defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 as in exchange. Tomba Singh vendee has died during the pendency of the case, his legal representatives were duly brought on the record. Chaobi Devi who is the sister of defendant No.1 Tombi Devi was impleaded as pro-forma defendant as she is the owner of the other half of the Inkhol. It is to be noted that an Inkhol is a compound used for residence. 2. The contestant defts. Nos.1 and 2 have denied the plaintiffs claim on two main grounds that the transaction is not a sale but an exchange and also that a nala (water channel) about one fathom in width separates the so-called adjoining Inkhol of the plaintiff and the disputed northern portion of the Inkhol thus exchanged. Defendant No.3 is not contesting the plaintiffs suit. 3. The crucial point in the case is whether the plaintiffs Inkhol is adjacent to that of the alienated portion of the disputed Inkhol of defendant No.1 on which he has based his right of pre-emption. If not, his, suit fails. 4-8. The only evidence adduced by the plaintiff in this case consists of himself and two more witnesses Chura Singh and Ningthou Singh. (His Lordship considered their evidence along with the evidence produced by the defendants and proceeded). 9. No evidence has been led in this case by the plaintiff that pre-emption in the State is generally accepted and judicially recognised. He has not produced any copy of judgment of any court regarding this issue. (His Lordship considered their evidence along with the evidence produced by the defendants and proceeded). 9. No evidence has been led in this case by the plaintiff that pre-emption in the State is generally accepted and judicially recognised. He has not produced any copy of judgment of any court regarding this issue. The learned District Judge has imported in his judgment his personal knowledge and some observations which are not supported by any evidence in the case. I remember to have already remarked in some judgments that such personal knowledge or observations should not be imported in the judgment and should not influence the mind of a Judge without any evidence on the record. A case is not to be decided on presumptions, and possibilities but on facts proved and the matter legally established. 10. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that a nala (irrigation channel) separates the two estates and that it does not belong to the parties but to the State. The plaintiffs Inkhol, therefore, cannot he said to be adjacent to that of the disputed land and evidently, he looses the ground for his right of pre-emption. He will not be entitled to claim the privilege of pre-emption because there is no proximity between the two estates. On this point alone his suit for pre-emption fails. 11. In view of the above finding the other points in the case need not be gone into. This appeal is allowed. The decree and findings of the District Judge on appeal are set aside with the result that the plaintiffs suit stands dismissed as decreed by the trial Court. Plaintiff respondent will bear the Appellants cost of this appeal. Counsels fee Rs.25/-. Appeal allowed.