should have produced the B-memo receipts with reference to the same to evidence the claim of the possession and enjoyment of the same. Absolutely, no B memo receipt has been projected by the plaintiff to hold that the Government had recognised his possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint. On the other hand, the first appellate court seems to have shifted the burden on the defendants and found fault that the defendants have failed to establish their claim of possession and enjoyment of the property as projected by them in the written statement. When the defendants have challenged the claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property as described in the plaint and on the other hand, during the course of arguments, D.W.1 has admitted that the plaintiff is in enjoyment of only 2½ cents and that too, not within the boundaries as described in the plaint and when even with reference to the enjoyment of 2½ cents, there is no material on the part of the plaintiff other than the house tax receipts and electricity bills, it is thus seen that the first appellate court, without any basis, on the pleas of the abovesaid admission on the part of the D.W.1, proceeded to hold that it should be construed that it is only the plaintiff who is in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property as described in the plaint. When the suit property is found to be measuring of a particular extent and within the particular boundaries and when the claim of the plaintiff to the same is, in toto, challenged and when the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property and when no B memo receipt has been projected by the plaintiff with reference to the same, in such view of the matter, the approach of the first appellate court in finding fault with the defendants that they had failed to establish their claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit property and thereby endeavouring to accept the plaintiff's case when there being no material to sustain the plaintiff's case, in my considered opinion, the reasonings and the conclusions of the first appellate court in upholding the plaintiff's case, sans any material pointing to the same, is totally suffering from complete perversity and also found to be totally illogical and irrational in all aspects. The first appellate court, instead of directing the plaintiff to establish his case is found to have shifted the burden of proof on the part of the defendants and thereby proceeded to uphold the case without there being any material on the part of the plaintiff to hold that the suit property is in his possession and enjoyment. The first appellate court has also noted that the defendants have failed to take out the commission to establish their plea of possession and enjoyment of the property. When the possession of the property by the parties concerned cannot be determined based on the commission's report, the abovesaid approach of the first appellate court in finding fault with the defendants, as such,
