Short Note : 1. Shri Patel, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the lower appellate Court failed to take into consideration the material evidence on record and hence the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court were vitiated and liable to be interfered with under section 100 CPC. 2. Held: Normally, it is not open to this Court to interfere with the findings of fact arrived at by the lower appellate Court, but, as I shall presently show, the lower appellate Court has not at all considered the material evidence on record and has also misread the evidence on record. 3. The first question for consideration before the lower appellate Court was whether the suit premises belonged to the plaintiff as claimed by him. The plaintiff examined PW-1 Laxminarayan. who deposed that he was occupying the suit land belonging to the plaintiff's father about twenty-five years ago. that he had constructed a hut of six Chasmas over the suit land, and that when he left the village he had sold the super-structure to the plaintiff and delivered possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff. The lower appellate Court held that the statement of this witness was not reliable as he was interested in the plaintiff. Learned counsel for the respondent was unable to point out from the material on record or from the examination of this witness as to how this witness could be said to be an interested witness Out of six. Chasmas so sold to the plaintiff, PW4 Badrilal deposed that he was occupying the suit premises which be onged to the plaintiff for about two years when he was residing at village Ranjana and that in the adjoining Chasmas the plaintiff was tethering his cattle. The fact that PW-l Laxminarayan had built a hut of six Chasmas on the suit land was admitted by the defendant in cross-examination He also admitted that PW-l Laxminarayan was residing in the suit premises and that the plaintiff was tethering his cattle in the adjoining two Chasmas which are in dispute. All these admissions made by the defendant were not taken into consideration by the Court below It is not the case of the defendant that he purchased the suit premises from any one. His case was that He found the suit land to be vacant and built a structure over it. All these admissions made by the defendant were not taken into consideration by the Court below It is not the case of the defendant that he purchased the suit premises from any one. His case was that He found the suit land to be vacant and built a structure over it. In view of the statements of PW-l Laxminarayan and PW-4 Badrilal, which have not been relied upon by the Court below for reasons which do not appear from the record, and in view of the fact that material admissions made by the defendant have not been taken into consideration by the Court below in determining the title of the plaintiff to the suit premise, the finding that the plaintiff failed to prove his ownership of the suit premise is vitiated. The lower appellate Court, by ignoring the material evidence on record, has erred in holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title to the suit premises. Appeal allowed.