JUDGMENT
1. This was a suit by a purchaser at a revenue sale to recover certain lauds on the allegation that they were the reformed lands of the estate which ha had purchased. This allegation was denied by the defendants, and the parties went to trial on this issue.
2. The first Court erroneously threw out the suit on the ground of limitation without going into the merits. The lower appellate Court has overruled the plea of limitation, and on the merits has given the plaintiff a decree for so much of the land in dispute as is found to have been included within his estate at the time of the survey of 1846-47. The Subordinate Judge says: “On the question of title there is, it has been admitted, no evidence on either side, excepting copies of two survey maps produced by the plaintiff, one being the survey map of 1846-47 and the other that of 1865-66. A local enquiry was held by the Civil Court Amin, and it was found that 2 bighas 1 3/4 dhurs according to the first map, and 14 bighas 17 cottahs 4 1/2 dhurs according to the second map, fell within Mouzah Chandpur. The survey map of 1846-47 was the general survey of all estates, while the survey of 1865-66 was the survey of those places only on which the river Ganges had made encroachments, and in this view the former is, for the purpose of ascertaining the limits of conterminous mehals, entitled to more weight and value.”
3. Both parties have appealed to this Court. The plaintiff has appealed on the ground that the lower appellate Court should have based its decree upon the later Dearah survey map ; but in our opinion this is no ground for second appeal, and the plaintiff’s appeal must, therefore, be dismissed. The defendants respondents object to the decree on the ground that the lower appellate Court was wrong in law in relying upon the survey map as conclusive evidence of title. In support of this contention we have been referred to the case of Mohesh Chundar Sen v. Juggut Chunder Sen 5 C. 212, in which case it was, no doubt, found that the thakbust map relied on was not in itself sufficient evidence of title. Upon a consideration of that case, however, and of the other cases cited there–The Collector of Rajshahye v. Doorga Soonduree Delia 2 W.R. 210, Shusee Moohhee Dossee v. Bissessuree Debee 10 W.R. 343, Oomut Fatima v. Bhujo Gopal Doss Mohunt 13 W.R. 50, Ram Narain Doss v. Mohesh Chunder Bannerjee 19 W.R. 202-we are not prepared to say that in no case can the evidence of survey maps be sufficient evidence of title. As is stated in those decisions, each case must be decided upon its own merits. A survey map is evidence of possession at a particular time, the time at which the survey was made; and although, as in the case cited, evidence of possession at one particular time might not be sufficient in itself to raise a presumption that the land belonged to the estate at the time of the permanent settlement, yet coupled with other evidence of possession, it might suffice to raise that presumption. Now in the present case we gather that the land which has been decreed to the plaintiff is included within his estate both in the survey map of 1846-47 and in the Dearah survey map of 1865-66–that is to say, it has been found to have been in his predecessor’s possession as appertaining to the estate he has purchased at two periods separated by an interval of twenty years. We are not prepared to say that this was not. sufficient evidence from which the Subordinate Judge might fairly draw the inference that the bible lay with the plaintiff.
4. The cross-objection must, therefore, be dismissed.
5. Each party will pay his own costs.
Leave a Reply