JUDGMENT Kaushal Kishore, Member - This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgement and decree of the learned Additional Commissioner dated January 27, 1973, reversing the judgement of the trial court dated September 19, 1972 and thereby dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of her sole rights on certain plots. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that in respect of three Bhumidhari and one Sirdari plots, Smt. Hulaso, the plaintiff was a co-tenant with Smt. Gomti, wife of Basant. Smt. Gomti died and her daughter, Rukmini got herself mutated in the records on half share of Smt. Gomit. The plaintiff alleged that Smt. Rukmini is not the daughter of Basant but of one Itwari with whom Smt. Gomti had illicit relations and so she is not entitled to succeed. The learned trial court decreed the suit in respect of the three Bhumidhari plots and dismissed it in respect of the Sirdari plot. The first appellate court, allowing the appeal, dismissed the whole suit. The whole suit hinges on the finding whether Smt. Rukmini is the daughter of Basant or not. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal on the grounds that the lower appellate court legally erred in discarding admission of the defendant, Smt. Rukmini herself, that the certified copy of the statement of Smt. Gomti could not be held inadmissible on presumptive grounds and that the judgement of the learned lower appellate court was perverse. The main points pressed in arguments are that the copy of the statement of Smt. Gomti given before the Assistant Consolidation Officer could not legally be discarded, that the evidence of the plaintiff's witness, Itwari was discarded on improper grounds and that the statement of the defendant, Rukmini herself revealed her age but only part of the statement and not the whole of it was relief upon. The respondent's counsel has argued that the finding of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal which is a settled law and has cited a ruling reported in 1969 R.D. 294 in support. The respondent's counsel has argued that the finding of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal which is a settled law and has cited a ruling reported in 1969 R.D. 294 in support. In this case Bithal Das Khanna v. Hafiz Abdul Hai the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even if the appreciation of evidence made by the lower appellate court is patently erroneous and the findings of fact is grossly wrong that cannot be said to introduce a substantial error defect in the procedure which would justify interference under Section 100(1) (c) of the Code. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the application of this ruling and argued that in the instant case, it does not apply since the findings by the learned lower appellate court give rise to question of law and in such case, the second appellate court has jurisdiction. He has cited a ruling in Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 271. It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that- "If the court of fact whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at a decision of fact by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant, or bases its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence, then in such a situation clearly an issue of law arises. And in such a case, it is well established that when a court of fact acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material and thereby an issue of law arises." On going through the judgement of the learned Additional Commissioner and the record, I find that holding inadmissible the certified copy of the statement of Smt. Gomti itself give rise of a question of law since for a piece of evidence which is normally admissible, a precise finding and reason for holding it inadmissible is necessary and just calling it doubtful is not sufficient. The learned Additional Commissioner did not hold that this copy was forged or the statement was not taken before the Assistant Consolidation Officer but simply held it doubtful on the basis of an overwriting in the date given below the statement of Smt. Gomti. He has simply surmised that since the case before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was decided on October 14, 1961 and the certified copy of another witness Jagdish Narain showed the date of statement as October 23, 1961, the statement of Smt. Gomti also was doubtful; although the date of statement in the copy was noted as October 13, 1961, later on corrected as October 3, 1961 and so was not relevant. Further from the record it is seen that only the part of the statement of D.W. 1, Smt. Rukmani giving her father's name as Basant was relied upon and her statement in the cross-examination was not at all relied upon. Again, only examination-in-chief of D.W. 2, Chandan was relied upon and not the facts given by him in the cross-examination. The statement of P.W. 1, Itwari has not been relied upon on the ground that he was not present in the birth ceremony of Smt. Rukmini being Muslim and of a different caste. But his statement in cross-examination that Basant had died 35 years back has been relied upon. Thus, it is obvious that the learned Additional Commissioner based his decision partly on surmises and suspicions and partly on evidence and in such a situation, an issue of law arises. Leaving out admissible and relevant documentary evidence also raises, a question of law. By selecting only certain parts of statements for consideration and leaving out other relevant portions, the finding arrived at cannot be but perverse and vitiated. It is, therefore, necessary to go into the questions raised in this appeal and jurisdiction can not be denied. 5. Apart from the plea of jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the respondents has further argued that the name of Smt. Rukmini was entered in the Khatas during consolidation and the mutation was done in her favour. 6. Taking up the admissibility of the copy of the statement of Smt. Gomti, it is seen that there can be no doubt about its genuineness. 6. Taking up the admissibility of the copy of the statement of Smt. Gomti, it is seen that there can be no doubt about its genuineness. Sections 79 and 80 of the Evidence Act are relevant in respect of this copy of the statement of Smt. Gomti which, accordingly, must be presumed to be correct and genuine unless successfully rebutted by the other party. The defendants have not shown at any time that such statement before the Assistant Consolidation Officer was not taken and so this evidence remaining unrebutted and must be considered., It has been pleaded by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no stage in the proceedings before the Assistant Consolidation Officer to record any statement. The same appears to be the ground in the judgement of the learned lower appellate court for holding this statement doubtful. However, from the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, as it stood in 1961, it is seen that Section 9(2) of the Act provides for complete jurisdiction and powers for holding enquiries to the Assistant Consolidation Officer and this provision was taken away only by the amendment Act of 1963. Further, on seeing the copy of the statement which is on the record it is clear that the dated below the words "Sd./- A.C.O." was formerly given as October 13, 1961 which was corrected as October 3, 1961 by crossing out the first numeral, one. This correction itself is not relevant and does not create any reasonable doubt about the genuineness of this statement. This is an important piece of evidence and cannot be discarded for insufficient reasons or surmises. 7. Before taking up the appreciation of the statement of witnesses of the two parties, it may be mentioned that both the parties relied only on the oral evidence of the question whether Smt. Rukmini is the daughter of Basant or not. In respect of the finding that Bansant had died about 35 years back, nothing needs be said. It is the age of Smt. Rukmini at the time of deposition which is crucial and subject to controversy. In respect of the finding that Bansant had died about 35 years back, nothing needs be said. It is the age of Smt. Rukmini at the time of deposition which is crucial and subject to controversy. As mentioned earlier, the evidence of Itwari should not have been discarded on the ground that he was a Muslim or had not been present at the birth ceremony of Smt. Rukmini, particularly when his statement in the cross-examination that Basant had died 35 years back and not 50 years back was considered to be worth reliance. The observation of the learned Additional Commissioner only shows his bias against and suspicion towards the plaintiff. For a witness deposing about the age of a person, it is not necessary that he should have been present at the birth ceremony of the person concerned, or even that he should be older than that person. A younger witness can also have personal knowledge of the age of any particular person. The criteria fixed by the learned lower appellate court are plainly arbitrary. In respect of the witnesses produced by the defendants, more reliance has been placed on the statement of D.W. 2, Chandan than on the statement of D.W. 1, Rukmini for no obvious reason. The ruling cited from 1965 A.L.J. 324 is not quite applicable to the present case since it only says that estimates as to the age or time are very frequently inaccurate and so the question of age or time should be specifically raised before the person making the statement. It does not say that the facts as to the age or time given in the statement cannot be relied upon at all. In fact, in the statement of Smt. Rukmini in the examination-in-chief age was not asked but in the cross-examination, specific questions have been put to determine her age and the learned trial court has based its findings on the same. Reliance was placed by the Additional Commissioner on the statement of Chandan, D.W. 2 when he said that Smt. Rukmini was 28 or 30 years old at the time of her marriage but the cross-examination shows that Chandan stated that at the time of consolidation, Smt. Rukmini had already been married and was about 16-17 years of age. Reliance was placed by the Additional Commissioner on the statement of Chandan, D.W. 2 when he said that Smt. Rukmini was 28 or 30 years old at the time of her marriage but the cross-examination shows that Chandan stated that at the time of consolidation, Smt. Rukmini had already been married and was about 16-17 years of age. This, in fact, confirms Rukmini's own statement that she had been married at the age of 11 or 12 years and the statement of Chandan to the effect that she was married at the age of 28 or 30 years is not supported by any other evidence and must be discarded. It is astonishing how the learned Additional Commissioner could write that the trial court had incorrectly read the statement of Chandan, D.W. 2 when the above statement in the cross-examination is on the record. Again, the statement of Baldeo D.W. 4 that Smt. Rukmini was 2 years old when Basant died remains un-corroborated by any other evidence and should not have been relied by the learned Additional Commissioner, even knowing that Baldevo D.W. 4 had purchased the land of Basant from Smt. Rukmini in the name of his sons and brother and must be held to be a highly interested witnesses. 8. From the above, it is clear that the learned Additional Commissioner should not have discarded the certified copy of the statement of Smt. Gomti, should not have taken into consideration only the part statements of the witnesses but should have considered the cross-examinations also to arrive at a consistent and proper finding. There is a big difference between 11 or 12 years as the age of marriage of Smt. Rukmini and 28 or 30 years as her age at the time of her marriage. This does not fall into inaccurate estimation. Inaccuracy in estimation in such a case would be limited to a few years not that the age of marriage would be stated two and a half times. The solitary statement of Chandan D.W. 2 that Smt. Rukmini was 28 or 30 years at the time of her marriage is contradicted by his own statement in cross-examination. Inaccuracy in estimation in such a case would be limited to a few years not that the age of marriage would be stated two and a half times. The solitary statement of Chandan D.W. 2 that Smt. Rukmini was 28 or 30 years at the time of her marriage is contradicted by his own statement in cross-examination. The logical finding can only be that Smt. Rukmini was about 28 years at the time of her statement and Basant having died 35 years back, she can only be the daughter of Itwari as also confirmed by the statement of Smt. Gomti before the Assistant Consolidation Officer. The grounds on which the learned Additional Commissioner based his decision being thus found baseless and biased his findings cannot be sustained and the judgement dated January 27, 1973 must be set aside and the order of the learned trial court which is consistent and based on a proper appreciation of evidence must be upheld. 9. Accordingly, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgement and decree of the learned lower appellate court dated January 27, 1973 and confirm the judgement and decree by the learned trial court dated September 19, 1972.