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) 20. In Rajbir Kaur v. S. Chokesiri and Co., this Court observed: (SCC pp. 39-41, paras 48-52) “48. Reference on the point could also usefully be made to A.L. Goodhart's article in which, the learned author points out: ‘A judge sitting without a jury must perform dual function. The first function consists in the establishment of the particular facts. This may be described as the perceptive function. It is what you actually perceive by the five senses. It is a datum of experience as distinct from a conclusion. It is obvious that, in almost all cases tried by a judge without a jury, an appellate court, which has not had an opportunity of seeing the witnesses, must accept his conclusions of fact because it cannot tell on what grounds he reached them and what impression the various witnesses