“9. Aggrieved by the decree passed in his appeal by the District Court, the respondent moved the High Court under section 100 C. P. C., and his appear was heard by Sanjeeva Rao Nayudu J. The learned judge emphasised the fact that no sale deed had been produced by the appellants to prove their title, and then examined the documentary evidence on which they relied. He was inclined to hold that Ext. A-8 had not been proved at all and could not, therefore, be receive(] in evidence. It has been fairly conceded by Mr. Sastri for the respondent before us that this was plainly erroneous in law. The docu- ment in question being a certified copy of a public document need not have been proved by calling a witness. Besides, no objection had been raised about the mode of proof either in the trial Court or in the District Court. The learned judge then examined the question as to whether the said document was genuine, and he thought that it was a doubtful document and no weight could be attached to it. A similar comment was made by him in respect of the cist receipts on which both the courts of fact had acted. In his opinion, the said documents were also not genuine and could not be accepted as reliable. He then referred to the fact that the appellants had offered security in proceedings between the respondent and his judgment-debtor Boya Krishnappa, and held that the said conduct destroyed the appellants' case; and, he also relied on the fact that the leasedeeds produced by the appellants had been disbelieved and that also weakened their case. It is on these considerations that the learned judge set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below, allowed the
