Short Note : The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the applicant had purchased a she buffalo from the non-applicant for a sum of Rs. 800. It also held that the applicant failed to make the payment of the price of the she buffalo inspite of demands and hence the non-applicant was entitled to a decree for the amount claimed in the suit. Consequently, the suit was decreed and future interest at 6 per cent per annum was allowed. Hence this revision. Held: The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record has arrived at the findings of fact which cannot be disturbed in revision. The trial Court had the advantage of noting the demeanour of the parties. In the impugned judgment the Court has observed that the non-applicant is an uneducated cultivator and he does not appear to be such a cunning fellow that he would institute a false suit against the applicant. The defence of the applicant that he had advanced a sum of Rs. 300/- to the non-applicant towards his agricultural labour charges has been disbelieved by the Court below. The learned counsel for the applicant read before me the evidence of the parties and contended that the trial Court has, on account of improper appreciation of the evidence, come to a wrong conclusion. It may be noted that even an erroneous finding of fact cannot be disturbed in revision. The trial Court neither committed any jurisdictional error in decreeing the non-applicant's suit in toto nor the findings arrived at by it can be said to be perverse so as to call for an interference by this Court in revision. Revision dismissed.