The only point argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Courts below went wrong in ignoring the mandatory provisions of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, which gives presumption towards the acts of the officials who issued Exs.A1 to A4. It is settled law that presumption has to be drawn under Section 74 of the Act with regard to the public documents. But, however, that does not mean that such presumption is unrebuttable. Moreover, mere marking of a document as an exhibit does not dispense with its proof. Admittedly, sister of the plaintiff, who issued Exs.A1 to A4 was not examined. No person examined to prove Exs.A1 to A4. Admittedly, Exs.A1 to A4 were issued by the sister of the plaintiff who was working as Village Secretary, that too just before filing the suit. The Courts below observed that the appellant would not have kept quite without paying cist if at all assignment in his favour in 1977 is true? An entry in Revenue record is open to the attack that it was made fraudulently. The Courts have to appreciate the evidence and draw logical conclusions. While drawing local conclusions, all the relevant facts have to be taken into consideration. All the facts and circumstances, under which the relevant documents came into existence should be considered. Whether the case putforth by a party is probable or not has to be carefully examined. As far as appreciation of evidence on record is concerned, the Courts have to draw logical conclusions on the basis of evidence on record i.e., on proper appreciation of evidence. The fact that the father of the plaintiff had patta land and the plaintiff was only 15 years old in 1977 makes it clear that there was no possibility of assigning land to the plaintiff who was a minor in 1977. The Courts below were also justified in finding that the plaintiff failed to file any documents such as cist receipts or adangals from 1977 till the date of issuing Exs.A1 to A4 which were admittedly obtained by the plaintiff just before filing of the suit. It is
