JUDGMENT The defendant/appellants have directed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.2.88 rendered by Additional District Judge, Mandsaur camp at Neemuch in Civil Suit No. 25A of 86, thereby decreeing the suit of the respondents/plaintiff for declaration, partition and possession of the disputed property. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiff have filed a suit for declaration, partition, possession, perpetual injunction and mesne profit against the appellants with respect to agricultural land and houses situated at Belara Tahsil Malhargarh. The respondents' case, in short, is that they are daughters of deceased Amra, who had no male issue and that after the death of Amra, appellant Sitaram with fraudulent intention represented him to be adopted son of deceased Amra and got his name mutated over the suit-property. Appellant Sitaram contested the case filed by the respondent/plaintiffs. The trial Court has held that ceremony of adoption of the appellant Sitaram is not proved and decreed the suit of the plaintiffs, for 1/4th share in the suit-property and decree for possession of 1/4th share of the suit-property alongwith mesne profit to the tune of Rs. 2,340/-. Aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal against the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that appellant Sitaram has filed as many as nine documents in support of his case before the trial Court and the documents are exhibited as D/1 to D/9. The trial Court without referring or considering the aforesaid documents decided the case and passed the impugned judgment and decree. The judgment of the trial Court on this very ground is not in accordance with the law and deserves to be set aside. As against this the counsel for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court and submitted that the trial Court has not committed any error in recording the finding of alleged adoption against appellant Sitaram and thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff. I have considered rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned judgment. On perusal it is found that appellant Sitaram has filed as many as nine documents in support of his case (Ex. I have considered rival submissions of the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record as also the impugned judgment. On perusal it is found that appellant Sitaram has filed as many as nine documents in support of his case (Ex. D/1 to D/9) but while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court has neither considered nor referred any of the documents filed on behalf of appellant Sitaram and recorded the findings against the appellant only on the basis of oral evidence of the parties. In my opinion, the trial Court has committed an error in recording the findings against appellant without considering or referring the documentary evidence produced on behalf of the appellant. As such the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to the settled principle of law and deserves to be demolished on this count alone. In view of the aforesaid facts of the case on hand without considering the case on merits, impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for passing fresh judgment after considering oral and documentary evidence of the parties. While passing fresh judgment, the trial Court shall only hear the arguments of both sides but without recording any new evidence, if produced. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the case is remanded back to the trial Court for passing fresh judgment in accordance with the law in the terms as indicated above. There shall be no orders as to costs of this appeal. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the trial Court on 16th March, 1998. Record of the trial Court be transmitted immediately.