JUDGMENT K.P. Single, J.- The present petitioner had claimed right on the basis of adverse and continuance of possession over the disputed land. The trial court had not accepted the claim of the petitioner. In appeal the claim of petitioner was accepted as it is evident from its judgment dated 7th October, 1972. Thereafter the second appellate court has negatived the claim of the petitioner. Now the petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends before me that second appellate court has acted illegally and without jurisdiction in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by first appellate court, second contention raised on behalf of petitioner is that the second appellate court has failed to address itself to material evidence which was considered sufficient by the court of fact to confer right upon the petitioner. 3. In my opinion both the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in the circumstances of the present case have no force. It is well known that question of adverse possession is a mixed question of fact and law. The second appellate court has indicated in its judgment a number of pieces of evidence relied upon by the first appellate court which were not strictly in accordance with rules contained in Land Records Manual, hence those pieces of evidence were irrelevant evidence and could not legally be relied upon by the first court of fact. In my mind the reason given by second appellate court is just and legal reason, the entries in favour of the petitioner are not strictly according to rules of Land Records Manual, hence they could not be relied upon holding that the petitioner continued in possession in those years. The court of fact had failed to consider this aspect of the matter and the second appellate court has rightly set aside the finding of the first appellate court because it was based on irrelevant pieces of evidence. 4. As regards oral evidence the first appellate court has relied upon the statements of two Lekhpals in respect of possession of the petitioner over the land in dispute for more than statutory period. It has been indicated by the Board of Revenue which is highest court in revenue side in this State that the statement of Lekhpal is no evidence if it is contradictory to the documents prepared by him. It has been indicated by the Board of Revenue which is highest court in revenue side in this State that the statement of Lekhpal is no evidence if it is contradictory to the documents prepared by him. In the present case documents prepared by Lekhpals were not strictly in accordance with rules, therefore statement given by them would not help the petitioner in any manner. If the second appellate court has not addressed itself to oral evidence. It has not committed as such an error which may warrant interference by this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Lastly it has been suggested that the second appellate court should have remanded the case to the first appellate court for determining the question of fact involved in the case. On the other materials before me I am not satisfied that any manifest injustice has occurred to the petitioner by not remanding the case to the first appellate court, when the oral evidence is not of much importance to confer right upon the petitioner. No manifest injustice has occurred in the circumstances of the present case. 6. In the result the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.