Short Note : 1. It is apparent from the document filed by the plaintiff himself i. e, the certified copy of the Khasra for the years 1960 to 1964 (Ex. P-I-A) that Sanman Singh, father of the defendant, has been shown as the occupancy tenant of the holding in question and pas also teen shown in possession in the said right. The document filed by the plaintiff himself falsifies the stand taken by him of the alleged dispossession on or about 30th June 1959. The entry in the Khasra of the name of the father of the defendant Rajaram as an occupancy tenant clearly supports the stand taken by him about his possession of the suit-land from the time of his father, and there is no explanation from the plaintiff for such an entry. The plaintiff suppressed this fact and could not explain as to how the father of the defendant was recorded as an occupancy tenant of the said holding. Held : The lower appellate Court, being the last Court on facts, for sufficient reasons given in paras 10 to 13 of its judgment, has rightly believed the version of the defendant that he had been In possession of the suit-land for the last more than 16 years prior to the institution of the suit. The lower appellate Court was also fight in arriving at the finding that the suit-land was held by the defendant as an occupancy tenant, as disclosed from the documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff himself. The conduct of the parties also supports the stand of the defendant. 2. It is true that during the course of cross-examination he happened to travel beyond the case all ready set up by him by saying that his father had purchased the suit-land from the plaintiff. But, merely for this reason, it would not be proper to reject the case of the defendant when not only the surrounding circumstances but the entries in the revenue records also clearly support the actual stand taken by the defendant. The case with which the plaintiff came to the Court about the, alleged dispossession in June 1959 could not be established by reliable evidence and the lower appellate Court was right in recording a finding of fact in this respect against the plaintiff. Appeal dismissed.