wherein after noticing the previous judgments of this Court, the following has been held in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 thus: - 7. (2007) 4 SCC 16318 “18. Furthermore, when the learned trial Judge arrived at a finding on the basis of appreciation of oral evidence, the first appellate court could have reversed the same only on assigning sufficient reasons therefor. Save and except the said statement of DW 2, the learned Judge did not consider any other materials brought on record by the parties. 19. In Madholal Sindhu v. Official Assignee of Bombay, it was observed: (AIR p. 30, para 21) “It is true that a judge of first instance can never be treated as infallible in determining on which side the truth lies and like other tribunals he may go wrong on questions of fact, but on such matters if the evidence as a whole can reasonably be regarded as justifying the conclusion arrived at, the appeal court should not lightly interfere with the judgment.” (See also Madhusudan Das v. Narayanibai)