JUDGMENT : K.P. Mohapatra, J. - This is against the judgments dismissing his suit and recovery of possession. 2. The Appellant is the Plaintiff. His case is that the suit lands belonged to his father Brunda Rana. After the death of his father he inherited the same and has been in possession thereof. Respondent' No. 2 and late Ranjit are the sons of Munsi Rana, son of the brother of Brunda Rana. Respondent No. 1 is the minor son and Respondent No. 3 is the widow of late Ranjit. Late Ranjit was an Amin in the settlement department and taking advertise of his position he got the suit lands fraudulently recorded in the names of himself and his two other brothers, namely Respondent No. 2 and Anr. since deceased. Despite the fraudulent record in the settlement records, the Appellant continued to remain in possession of the same until disturbance was, cleated resulting in a proceeding u/s 144 Criminal Procedure Code which was decided against him. So it was necessary for him to institute the suit to establish his title and possession. 3. The Respondents who are Defendants stated that the suit lands are their ancestral property and have been recorded the Plaintiff's appeal for declaration of title as such in the latest record-of-rights. They have been in possession thereof although. The Appellant was never in possession of the same. Therefore, they have both title and possession and the Appellant has none. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, who tried the suit held that the Appellant failed to establish his title and possession in respect of the suit lands. On the other hand, the Respondents succeeded in proving their continuous possession in respect thereof at least since the year 1955-56. Therefore, he dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge, Bhawanipatna, upheld the aforesaid findings and dismissed the appeal. 5. Mr. N. C. Pati, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that the learned Courts below did not at all discuss the oral, as well as the documentary evidence and, therefore, arrived at a wrong conclusion with regard to title and possession in respect of the suit lands. Mr. S. Kr. 5. Mr. N. C. Pati, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that the learned Courts below did not at all discuss the oral, as well as the documentary evidence and, therefore, arrived at a wrong conclusion with regard to title and possession in respect of the suit lands. Mr. S. Kr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents, on the other hand urged that according to the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of CPC ('Code' for short), the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the learned Courts below cannot be disturbed. 6. The scope and ambit of Section 100 of the Code is no longer res integra. In Madan Lal Vs. Mst. Gopi and Another it was held that where both the learned Courts below ignored the weight of-preponderating circumstances and allowed their judgments to be -influenced by inconsequential matters, the High Court would be justified in re-appreciating the evidence and in coming to its own independent conclusions. In Debendra Bhoi v. Meghu Bhoi and Anr. 61 (1986) C.L.T. 299, a learned Judge of this Court relying upon several decisions held that a finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate Court based on assessment of materials is not available to be interfered with in a second appeal, however, erroneous such finding may be. But there are certain well recognised exceptions which are; when the finding of fact is vitiated by a misconception 'on a point of law; material evidence has been ignored in arriving at the finding; the finding is based on no evidence; and the finding is vitiated by errors of record or errors of procedure, the concurrent finding of fact can be disturbed. In a very recent decision reported in Budhwanti and Another Vs. Gulab Chand Prasad it was held that in a second appeal a finding on fact even if erroneous will generally not be disturbed but where it is found that the finding is vitiated by application of wrong tests or on the basis of conjectures and assumptions, then a High Court will be well within its rights in setting aside in a second appeal a patently erroneous finding in order to render justice to the party affected by the erroneous finding. 7. The most important issues which arose for determination before the learned Courts below evolve round the title and possession in respect of the suit lands. 7. The most important issues which arose for determination before the learned Courts below evolve round the title and possession in respect of the suit lands. In order to decide the issues, it was necessary for them to critically examine and preponderate the oral, as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties. On consideration of the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, it is found that the oral, as well as the documentary evidence adduced by the parties relating to title and possession in respect of the suit lands was not at all considered. Without making reference to the oral statements of the witnesses, he came to the conclusion at the first instance that the oral evidence of possession being evenly balanced, there is not much to choose one from the other and by itself it is not sufficient to render a definite finding as to which of the parties has been in possession of the suit lands. After holding as above, the learned Judge turned to Ext 5 a judgment and solely on the basis of the same he held at the second instance that the Respondents are possessing the suit lands and the settlement records of 1955-56 correctly reflected their possession. After recording the aforesaid findings, he arrived at the conclusion that the Appellant had neither title nor possession in respect of the suit lands. It appears that he did not consider the rent receipts (Exts. 1 series), the record-of-rights of 1922-23 settlement (Ext. 2) and a few rent receipts (Exts. A, All, A/2 and A/3). He accepted the entries of 1955-56 settlement (Exts.2/a 3. 3/a and 3/b) as gospel truth without trying to ascertain as to why all on a sudden the entries in the record-of-rights of an earlier settlement were charged in a later settlement so as to be considered in favour of the Respondents. The learned first appellate Court did not also make a serious attempt of preponderating the evidence, both oral and documentary, and merely paraphrased the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge. Although he made passing reference to the statements of some witnesses examined by the parties, his appreciation was most superficial. He did not make a serious's attempt to find out the truth as to the title and possession in respect of the suit lands. Although he made passing reference to the statements of some witnesses examined by the parties, his appreciation was most superficial. He did not make a serious's attempt to find out the truth as to the title and possession in respect of the suit lands. It will not be out of place to mention that the suit involves about 5 acres of raiyati lands and homestead, and the parties are ordinary cultivators. To be deprived of such extent of landed property for any of the parties in these days of soaring prices of immovable property is indeed very hard. Therefore, before judicial determination is made granting-a decree in favour of a party in respect of a valuable immovable property it is imperative for the learned Judges of the Civil Courts to bestow their best attention for close scrutiny and proper appreciation of the oral, as well as the documentary evidence. They should be deemed to have failed in the performance of their judicial function, if they lightly weigh the oral evidence, attach little importance to important documents or overemphasize unimportant documents. If such things happen, despite concurrent findings of facts, the High Court shall have jurisdiction to interfere in second appeal. 8. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the facts and evidence adduced by the parties and the judgments rendered by the learned Courts below. I hold that the concurrent, findings on title and possession are based on non-consideration of evidence and facts. It is, therefore, a fit case for remand. After the remand, however, the parties shall not be allowed to adduce any further evidence nor shall be permitted to amend the pleadings. . The arguments of the learned Counsel for both parties should be heard and the learned Subordinate Judge shall dispose of the suit within three months from the date of receipt of the lower. Court records. 9. In the result the appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. The suit is remanded to the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bhawanipatna, for disposal in accordance with law in view of the observations made above. The parties are directed to appear before him on 22-2-1988 to receive directions. Costs shall abide the ultimate result of the suit. Final Result : Allowed