Short Note : The respondent plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that the 'Bada' adjoining the eastern wall of the house and the land belonged to him and the appellant defendant had encroached upon the land and had dug up 7' of that land. Both the Courts below decreed the plaintiff's suit. Held : The learned Court below in its judgment has referred to Ex. D/3 and D/4 and expressed some doubt about these documents on the basis that the deed for the Bada is earlier than that of the house and the learned judge felt that this has not been explained by the defendant appellant. A perusal of these two documents D/3 and D/4 clearly goes to show that both these documents are registered documents and merely because one of them was executed on 26-11-1961 and another on 28-11-1961 the documents could not be said to be doubtful or suspicious The learned lower appellate Court therefore was wrong in discarding two documents merely on this ground. Ex.D/1 is yet another document which is a map produced by the defendant appellant on the basis of these documents D/3 and D/4. The learned lower appellate Court felt that in view of the reasons stated by the trial Court this D/1 map is not correct whereas the learned Judge accepted Ex.D/1 as the correct map. A perusal of the conclusions arrived at by the lower appellate Court indicates that the learned judge did not consider the evidence of these documents D/3, D/4 and D/1 and came to the conclusion only on the basis of other evidence led by the plaintiff. The omission by the learned lower appellate Court to consider the material documentary evidence amounts to an error of law. Case remanded. Appeal allowed.