As per case facts, the appellant claimed ownership of a property and sought declaration of title, arrears of rent, and possession after the tenant, initially inducted by his father, began ... paying rent to the temple (defendant No.1) from 1969. The Trial Court and First Appellate Court concurrently found in favor of the appellant. However, the High Court reversed this decision, ruling out key documentary evidence like ledger books and photocopies, stating they were inadmissible or improperly proved. The High Court also framed questions of law based on an assumption that the property belonged to the temple, contrary to the lower courts' findings, leading to this appeal. The question arose whether the High Court, in a second appeal, could re-evaluate findings of fact and reject documentary evidence on grounds of admissibility or mode of proof when no such objections were raised during the trial, and whether its underlying assumption about property ownership was legally sound. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred significantly by rejecting evidence (ledger books, photocopies A30 and A34) when their admissibility or mode of proof was not objected to at trial, emphasizing that such objections must be timely. The High Court also incorrectly proceeded on the assumption that the property belonged to the temple, overriding concurrent findings of fact by lower courts without valid legal grounds. The Supreme Court underscored that a high degree of probability is sufficient to shift the burden of proof in civil cases and restored the trial court's judgment, confirming the appellant's title and right to possession.