JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 19.9.1998 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 136/1994 by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Wardha, whereby the appeal was dismissed. 2. Earlier, the plaintiff had instituted Regular Civil Suit No.115/1981 on 7th April,1981, which was dismissed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Hinghanghat, by judgment and order dated 7th May, 1994. 3. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the judgments passed by the Courts below are vitiated for failure to consider the material evidence i.e. decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 241/1973 on 26.2.1975 as well as the possession receipt (Exh.37) which was a public document and was entitled the appellant's suit to be decreed” 4. In support of the Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant Mr J.J.Chandurkar, contended that the plaintiff/appellant Gopal Jainarayan Karwa had purchased agricultural land admeasuring 7 acres described as agricultural field No. 42-43-44-45-55-56/4 which was assessed at Rs. 17/-, situated at Mouza Dhivri-Pipri, Tq. Hinghanghat, District Warda, bounded on east by Dattu Mohitkar's agricultural land; on west by Ajabrao 's agricultural land; on north Vanzarwadi and, on south Keshavrao Gundawar's agricultural land. Thus, the plaintiff became the owner of 7 acres of land as above under registered sale deed dated 14th March 1970 (registered on 16th March 1970). The land was purchased from Vasudeo Bokilwar. Out of the said agricultural land, the land on western portion admeasuring 4 acres was sold to Parasram Ramchandra Ugale. Thus, according to plaintiff only, 3 acres eastern portion of the entire land purchased remained in his possession which was encroached upon by Dattu Mohitkar, father of Kawadu Dattu Mohitkar. Therefore, suit for possession was instituted being Regular Civil Suit No. 241/ 1973 in the Court of learned Civil Judge at Hinghanghat. That suit was decreed on 26.2.1975 and defendant was directed to hand over possession of 3 acres of land which was encroached upon by Dattu Mohitkar. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was reinstated in possession of the suit land on 26.9.1975 under possession receipt Exh. 37 and possession warrant Exh. 36, which are part of the trial Court's record. Thereafter also, despite execution of decree passed in RCS No. 241/ 1973, the defendant encroached the same land again on 7.6.1976. It is further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff was reinstated in possession of the suit land on 26.9.1975 under possession receipt Exh. 37 and possession warrant Exh. 36, which are part of the trial Court's record. Thereafter also, despite execution of decree passed in RCS No. 241/ 1973, the defendant encroached the same land again on 7.6.1976. As such, another suit being Regular Civil Suit No.115/1981 was instituted in the Court of learned Civil Judge, J.D. Hinghanghat on 7th April, 1981. The said suit was, however, dismissed on 7.4.1992 as defendant had alleged purchase of 2 acres of land under an Isarpaoti dated 25.3.1967 (Exh.56). According to learned counsel for the appellant, however, there was no any registered sale deed in respect of the land described in the Isarpaoti dated 25.3.1967. It is further alleged that one acre was transferred to defendant Dattu Mohitkar without any document. Under these circumstances, it is contended that the first Appellate Court did not consider that the plaintiff was the owner of 7 acres of land under a registered sale deed dated 14.3.1970, of which admittedly, the western portion of 4 acres was transferred by him to one Parasram Ugale; but three acre eastern portion remained in his possession for ownership; out of the land which was purchased by him under the registered sale deed and in respect of this 3 acres of land Regular Civil Suit No. 241/1973 was filed which was decreed and the appellant was reinstated in possession in the course of execution of the decree. It is contended that the possession receipt as well as possession warrant which were exhibited as Exh.36 and 37 respectively in the trial Court, were overlooked of their presumptive sanctity in view of Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is further contended that in view of Section 114 illustration (e) of the Evidence Act, 1872, one has to start with presumption that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. Illustration (e) permits presumption to be drawn in the matter of procedure that judicial and official acts have been done with due care and attention. 5. In the present case, the possession receipt and possession warrant which were at Exhs. 37 and 36 in the trial Court, no doubt carried presumptive value of their genuineness. Illustration (e) permits presumption to be drawn in the matter of procedure that judicial and official acts have been done with due care and attention. 5. In the present case, the possession receipt and possession warrant which were at Exhs. 37 and 36 in the trial Court, no doubt carried presumptive value of their genuineness. As against this documentary evidence in the facts and circumstances, there was no evidence contrary of any registered sale deed that defendant had purchased 2 acres from of land from original owner Vasudeo Bokilwar; Exh.56 was merely an agreement to sell “Isarpatra” immovable property admeasuring 2 acres which appears to have been executed on 23rd May, 1967. In respect of that agreement to sell no suit was filed for specific performance. It was further alleged by the defendant that one acre of land was sold in addition to the defendant; but no documentary evidence of transfer of immovable property was produced or relied upon in support of the title; since any immovable property worth Rs. 100/-or more, can only be obtained on the basis of registered transfer. Learned counsel for appellant contended that there was not even pleading regarding one acre of land allegedly acquired subsequent to the Isarpatra The impugned judgment and order by the first Appellate Court as also the Trial Court did not, therefore, exhibit conscious application of mind to record sound and well-reasoned findings on all the issues arising between the parties. Normally, the High Court will not be justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact even if they are erroneous. However justice has to be done in accordance with clear and express provisions of law. When conclusions for the Courts below appeared erroneous, contrary to law or appears based on inadmissible evidence or passed in ignorance of material evidence, there has to be interference in the interest of justice even at the stage of Second Appeal. The substantial question of law which has been raised and quoted hereinabove, on behalf of the appellant, therefore, has to be answered in the affirmative, particularly when the chronology of facts indicate that the plaintiff had succeeded in Regular Civil Suit No. 241/1973 which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge J.D. Hinghanghat on 26.2.1975, pursuant to which in execution of the said final decree, the plaintiff regained possession of the suit property under possession warrant Exh. 36 and possession receipt Exh. 36 and possession receipt Exh. 37 from the Bailiff of the Court, particularly when registered sale deed dated 14.3.1970 also borne thumb impression of the Dattu Mohitkar as witness to the registered sale deed executed by Vasudeo Bokilwar, which is Exh.4 in the trial Court. This material fact appears to have been overlooked by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. Therefore, the conclusions of both the Court below were not only erroneous but contrary to law and were based on inadmissible evidence, such as Isarpatra while both the Courts below ignored the material evidence in the case. That being so the substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. In the result, therefore, the judgment and order dated 19.9.1998 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge Wardha in RCA No. 136/1994 arising out of judgment and order in RCS No.115/81 dated 7.10.1994 are set aside. The suit is decreed. The plaintiff shall be placed in actual physical possession of suit property i.e. 3 acres of land of eastern portion described in the plaint and acquired under registered sale deed dated 14.3.1970 (Exh.4). The plaintiff shall be reinstated in possession of the suit land and defendant be restrained permanently from disturbing possession of the said land. The decree be executed in terms of Prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the plaint. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.