BALAI CHANDRA GHOSE Vs. TARAPADA GHOSH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three points of law have been urged in this second appeal. The first point is that when there are two reports by two commissioners for local investigation, it is only the second commissioner's report which should have been taken as conclusive and not the first commissioner's report. The second point is that the lower appellate Court has made a confusion between Art. 142 and Art. 144 of the Limitation Act in the facts of this case and the Court below should have held that the Plaintiffs suit was barred by limitation. The third point is whether there is any presumption of accuracy or correctness in favour of C.S. maps.

(2.) It is said that the lower appellate Court was wrong in presuming these to be correct.

(3.) Before discussing these points a brief and short account of the facts giving rise to the appeal may be given. The Plaintiffs brought this suit for recovery of khash possession of and declaration of the Plaintiffs' title to certain lands described in Ka and Kha schedules in the plaint and for permanent injunction. There is also a sketch map attached to the plaint. The Plaintiffs' case is that Ka and Kha schedule lands appertain to C.S. plot No. 138 and that the first Defendant has wrongfully filled up the Ka and Kha schedule lands with earth and refuge in spite of repeated objections by the Plaintiffs' father and that the first Defendant has also commenced construction of a mud wall in the portion marked by certain lines in the sketch map annexed to the plaint. The Plaintiffs prayed for recovery of khash possession of Ka and Kha schedule lands along with a prayer for injunction for removal of the wall.