JUDGMENT George Knox, J.
1. As the lower Appellate Court observed, the chief point to be decided is whether the plaintiff has proved delivery of possession in his favour. In support of the fact that he had received delivery of such possession he produced a duly certified copy of a dakhalnama. That copy was admitted and by order of the Court of first instance placed upon the record. Afterwards it was returned, but no reason appears upon the document as to why it should have been returned. The lower Appellate Court held that the copy of the dakhalnama was not admissible in evidence without proof of due execution. It accordingly refused to consider it. It further held that if it were admissible in evidence, the plaintiff had not succeeded in proving delivery of possession in his favour. The reason why it so held is that the dakhalnama contained only an admission of the plaintiff and no person is allowed to prove his own admission. As the plaintiff had not in the opinion of the lower Appellate Court succeeded in proving that delivery of possession was made in his favour on the 5th of March 1909 it dismissed the appeal with costs.
2. The plaintiff comes here in appeal and takes the plea that the dakhalnama is admissible in evidence and proves the plaintiff's allegation. In support of this contention reliance is placed upon the case of Muhammad Nasir v. Ram Karan Singh 25 Ind. Cas. 529. In this case my brother Uah'que held that as the dakhalnama is a public-document, its copy is admissible in evidence without proof. I also am of the same opinion. The dakhalnama is a document forming record of the act of a public officer (executive), viz., the amin of the Court and that being so a copy is admissible in evidence. As the lower Appellate Court has decided the appeal on a preliminary point, I reverse the-decree upon this point. I direct that the appeal be returned to that Court with instructions to place it upon its file of pending' appeals and to determine it according to law. The Court will receive in evidence the copy of the dakhalnama quantum valebat. This will not prevent the lower Appellate Court from exercising the discretion given it under Order XLI, Rule 27. Costs will abide the event.