Short Note : It is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondents that the Khasra entries of Samvat years 1984 and 2007 to 2009 do not support the plaintiff's case as observed by the learned lower appellate Court. The Khasra of S. 2020 is only evidenced by a copy which is issued by a Patwari and learned counsel for respondents frankly conceded that this copy could not be admitted in evidence. Apparently, therefore, what the learned Judge says, that the Khasra entries from S.1984 and 2007 to 2009 support the case of the plaintiff-respondents, is not correct but it amounts to misreading of evidence, The Khasra entry of S.2020 could not be looked into as it is inadmissible in evidence. The teamed Judge has further relied on a statement given by Mohan D.W.2. But that statement also does not amount to an admission as said by the learned Judge. What that statement says in "Vadgrasta Padon me Vadigan Ki Va Prativadigan Ki Batai thi". The learned Judge observed that the certified copy of certain statements recorded by the Settlement Officer is also admissible in evidence and the learned Judge wanted to rely on those statements. Admittedly, those statements have not been shown to the defendant-appellants. It is also not clear that when these statements were given before the Settlement Officer what was the arrangement between the parties, and admittedly these statements were made in some proceedings in Samvat 1984. This statement of Harchand on whom the learned Judge tried to place reliance, even if looked into only says that the field known as Ambawala Khet is in his possession but now it has been divided into three shares; each one has one-third share each. It therefore does not indicate that there is any admission of the predecessor-in-title of the present appellants that the plaintiffs are entitled to two-third share in the five mango trees as alleged in the plaint. It is therefore clear that the learned lower appellate Court has set aside the judgment of the trial Court by reading in the documentary evidence what is not stated therein and by reading the documentary evidence what is inadmissible in evidence. Appeal allowed.