JUDGMENT S.N. Singh, J. - The short point of law involved in this appeal is about the admissibility of certain documents. 2. Parties to this Appeal are neighbours and the dispute is in respect of a plot of land to the east of the Plaintiff's house and to the north of that of the Defendants. Both the parties claimed this piece of land to be their Sahan. 3. The two courts have concurrently accepted the Plaintiff's case and decreed the suit. 4. The Defendants have come up in appeal to this Court an it has been contended on their behalf that the finding of the lower appellate court about the land being the Sahan of the Plaintiff though one of fact vitiated in law inasmuch as the lower appellate court has relied on two inadmissible pieces of evidence in arriving of this finding as such it is contended that the decision of the lower appellate court be set aside and case remanded for deciding it afresh after excluding the inadmissible evidence on the record. Reliance was placed for this submission on the cases of Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 271 and Abdul Shakur and Others Vs. Kotwaleshwar Prasad and Others, AIR 1958 All 54 : 1956 AWR 302 FB. 5. In order to appreciate the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Appellants it is necessary to give brief facts of the case. 6. The Plaintiff Respondent came to court on the allegation that the land in dispute was his Sahan and that the Defendants had wrongfully closed the Plaintiff's door which was to the west of the disputed land by erecting a new wall and had wrongly opened a new door in their house to the south of the disputed land. It appears that before the institution of the present suit criminal proceedings started between the parties one u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure in which a Naib Tahsildar was deputed to make in enquiry who after making enquiries had submitted his report. This proceeding u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure terminated in favour of the Defendants. There was yet another criminal litigation between the parties. It was started on the complaint of the Plaintiff under Sections 147, 323, 426 and 447 IPC. It appears that the Bench Magistrate before whom the case was pending inspected the locality and wrote an inspection note. This proceeding u/s 133 Code of Criminal Procedure terminated in favour of the Defendants. There was yet another criminal litigation between the parties. It was started on the complaint of the Plaintiff under Sections 147, 323, 426 and 447 IPC. It appears that the Bench Magistrate before whom the case was pending inspected the locality and wrote an inspection note. The Plaintiff in the trial court in support of his claim filed the report of the Naib Tahsildar and the judgment of the criminal court acquitting the accused. In the judgment of the criminal court the purport of the inspection note which the Bench Magistrate had made had been given. The trial court relying on the judgment, the report of the Naib Tahsildar and also on the oral evidence accepted the Plaintiff's case. 7. In appeal the Plaintiff filed the inspection note of the Magistrate which had been referred to in the criminal court judgment. This inspection note was admitted by the lower appellate court and thereafter Defendants were allowed opportunity to file rebutting evidence, the Defendants filed statements and complain made by the Plaintiff in rebuttal. The lower Appellate court mentioned all these facts and thereafter believed the evidence of the Plaintiff's witnesses. In the opinion of the lower appellate court those statements were corroborated by the report of the Naib Tahsildar and the inspection note of the Bench Magistrate. 8. On behalf of the Defendants Appellants it is contended that the inspection note of the Magistrate as well as the report of the Naib Tahsildar are inadmissible in evidence and since the lower appellate court has based its judgment relying on these inadmissible pieces of evidence the decision is vitiated and not binding in second appeal. In support of the contention that these documents are inadmissible in evidence Learned Counsel has relied on the cases of Tirkha and Another Vs. Nanak and Another, AIR 1927 All 350 , Dwijesh Chandra Roy Vs. Naresh Chandra Gupta, AIR 1945 Cal 492 , AIR 1934 890 (Lahore) , Ibrahim Beg v. Mt. Aziman and Anr. AIR 1936 Oud 192, Raja Mohan Bikram Shah @ Ram Raja Vs. Deonarain Mahto and Others, AIR 1945 Patna 453 and some other cases. 9. Nanak and Another, AIR 1927 All 350 , Dwijesh Chandra Roy Vs. Naresh Chandra Gupta, AIR 1945 Cal 492 , AIR 1934 890 (Lahore) , Ibrahim Beg v. Mt. Aziman and Anr. AIR 1936 Oud 192, Raja Mohan Bikram Shah @ Ram Raja Vs. Deonarain Mahto and Others, AIR 1945 Patna 453 and some other cases. 9. As against these decisions my attention was drawn on behalf of the Respondent to the following decisions: Dinomoni Chowdharni v. Brojo Mohini Chowdharni 29 IA 24, Baldeo Das v. Gobind Das AIR 1914 All. 59, Jagdat and Ors. v. Sheopal AIR 1927 Oud 323, Rathnamasari declared mad and others v. The Secretary of State for India in Council by the Collector of Salem AIR 1923 Mad. 332, S. Ramakrishna Pillai v. Tirunarayana Pillai and Ors. AIR 1932 Mad. 198 and some other cases. It has to be mentioned at this place that the Naib Tahsildar who had made a report was also produced before the trial court and he was cross-examined by the Defendants. So far as the admissibility of the report of the Naib Tahsildar is concerned I have no doubt in my mind that the report of the Naib Tahsildar coupled with his statement in court is clearly admissible in evidence since Defendants had an opportunity to cross-examine the Naib Tahsildar. But so far as the admissibility of the inspection note is concerned I felt considerable difficulty in accepting the inspection note as admissible in evidence. The cases relied on by the Learned Counsel for the Appellants do support the contention advanced by him. At the same time there is considerable support to the argument of the Respondent's Learned Counsel when he submitted that the inspection note by the Bench Magistrate in the instant case should be held to be admissible. The views of the various High Courts on this point are divergent and I agree with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that so far as this Court is concerned it has to accept the Division Bench decision of this Court in Baldeo Das v. Gobind Das AIR 1914 All. 59. The views of the various High Courts on this point are divergent and I agree with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that so far as this Court is concerned it has to accept the Division Bench decision of this Court in Baldeo Das v. Gobind Das AIR 1914 All. 59. Apart from this, having noticed the various authorities cited before me I am of opinion that the inspection note given by the Magistrate as provided by Section 539(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be treated in the circumstances of the present case admissible Under Sections 13 and 35 of the Evidence Act. As stated above this inspection note was given by the Magistrate soon after the complaint had been made by the Plaintiff in respect of this very land and soon after the new construction had been made by the Defendants he had gone on the spot and made his inspection note strictly in conformity with Section 539(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bench Magistrate in his inspection note had only given the state of affairs existing at the disputed plot. It cannot be disputed that parties were asserting their right in respect of this disputed plot when the criminal litigations had started between the parties the report of the Naib Tahsildar as well as the inspection note of the Magistrate had been given in connection with dispute of the patties in respect of this very land. The entire record of the criminal case which had been started on the complaint of the Plaintiff under various sections of the IPC could be treated as evidence in this case in view of the case of The Collector of Gorakhpur and another v. Palakdhari Singh ILR 12 All. 1. If the entire record could be treated as evidence, in my opinion the inspection note which formed part of that record should also be held admissible, it may be for a limited purpose in order to understand the facts of the case. 10. It is now proper to refer to the Allahabad cases referred to by the Learned Counsel for the parties in connection with the admissibility of the two documents. The only case of the Allahabad High Court which was cited on behalf of the Appellants is the case of Tirkha and Anr. v. Nanak and Anr. 10. It is now proper to refer to the Allahabad cases referred to by the Learned Counsel for the parties in connection with the admissibility of the two documents. The only case of the Allahabad High Court which was cited on behalf of the Appellants is the case of Tirkha and Anr. v. Nanak and Anr. (supra) and reliance was placed on head notes (b) and (d) wherein it had been held that: if a Magistrate makes use of knowledge derived from a local inspection without affording the accused an opportunity to cross-examine or to explain the points against him, he acts with material irregularity sufficient to vitiate the trial. A local inspection by a Magistrate is only permitted by Section 539B, for the purpose of properly appreciating the evidence in the case and cannot take the place of evidence itself. 11. I have already observed above in my judgment that the inspection note made by the Magistrate was strictly in conformity with the provisions of Section 539B of the Code of Criminal Procedure as is clear from head note(c) of this very case which reads as follows: The Magistrate u/s 539B should record a memorandum of any relevant facts observed by him at the time of inspection. The inspection note of the Magistrate is in conformity with the observation stated above. This decision of this Court in my opinion is of no assistance to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants. In the case of Dinomoni Chowdhrani v. Brojo Mohini Chowdharani (supra) it was held: Police orders made under the various Code of Criminal Procedure deciding who is in possession of disputed land, are admissible in evidence for and against every one u/s 13 of the Indian Evidence Act in a suit to decide title thereto to show the fact that such orders were made; necessarily making them evidence as to who the parties to the dispute were; what the land in dispute was and who was declared entitled to retain possession. If the orders refer to meets and bounds, these may be proved by extrinsic evidence. Maps referred to in the orders are admissible in evidence to render the order intelligible. A report accompanying the orders or maps and not referred to in the orders, may be admissible as hearsay evidence of reputed possession. If the orders refer to meets and bounds, these may be proved by extrinsic evidence. Maps referred to in the orders are admissible in evidence to render the order intelligible. A report accompanying the orders or maps and not referred to in the orders, may be admissible as hearsay evidence of reputed possession. u/s 13 it is admissible if it is a transaction in which the right or custom in question was created, claimed, or modified, recognised, asserted, or denied, or which was in compatible with its existence. In the case of Baldeo Das v. Gobind Das (supra) In connection with the appointment of a mahant of a temple situated in a Native State, the Political Agent referred the matter to the Kotwal of the State for inquiry. The Kotwal made a public inquiry and reported who had built the temple, who was the first mahant and by whom he was appointed. Held: that the report was a public record of a public enquiry and as such was admissible in evidence in a suit relating to the appointment of a future mahant of the temple. In the case of Jagdat and Ors. v. Sheopal (supra) it was observed: The result of an inquiry by a kanungo u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure, embodied in the report, is an entry in la public record stating a fact in issue and made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty and the report is, as such, admissible in evidence u/s 35, Evidence Act. In the case of The Collector of Gorakhpur and Anr. v. Palakdhari Singh (supra) one of the learned Judges Mr. Justice Straight observed that in cases of doubt a Judge should decide in favour of admissibility rather than in favour of non-admissibility. With respect I propose to follow this dictum of Mr. Justice Straight in this case. 12. In view of the above discussion the two documents referred to in the opening part of the judgment have to be held to be admissible in evidence and once they are held to be admissible the finding of the lower appellate court which is one of fact cannot be said to be vitiated in law and the appeal has to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs.