RADHA KISHUN Vs. SHYAM DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit which related to 136 bighas 8 kathas and 16 dhurs of land and the main, question to be determined is whether the disputed lands appertain to the plaintiff's village Jagdishpur Baili or the defendants village Jangi Pakahi. Jangi Pakahi is to the south of Jagdishpur Baili and it is common ground that the disputed lands were measured and entered as plots Nos. 1037 and 1038 of the cadastral survey map and Record of Rights of Jagdishpur Baili prepared in 1892-93. A commissioner was deputed by the trial Court to make a local investigation and by means of local measurements to compare the cadastral survey maps of Matiza Jagdishpur Baili and Jangi Pakahi with the revenue survey maps of 1833-31 and the diara survey maps of 1865-60 of the said villages.

(2.) He was not supplied with the field-book of the revenue survey and has noted in his report that: in the absence of the field-book the enlargement of the revenue survey map to the scale of the cadastral survey map could not be accurate. He made a comparison of the cadastral survey and the diara survey maps of Jagdishpur Baili and Jangi Pakahi and found that about 115 bighas 12 kathas of the disputed land fall within and appertained to Jangi Pakahi and 19 bighas odd fell within Jagdishpur Baili and 1 bigha 16 kathas odd belonged to another village Panapur Bahaki according to the boundaries shown in the diara survey maps. He farther reported that from the configuration of the diara and revenue survey maps it appeared to him that the boundaries shown in the one agreed with those shown in the other. But he nowhere definitely says in which village the disputed lands fall, according to the revenue survey maps.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge was of opinion that in the state of the evidence before him he could not go behind the cadastral survey and held that the whole of the disputed land appertained to the plaintiffs village. He accordingly decreed the suit. Defendants 1 to 3, 11, 16 to 18, 30 to 32 and the heirs of defendant 29 only have appealed the other defendants have not appealed; Plaintiffs 4 to 25 are not only proprietors of Jagdishpur Baili but are also proprietors of Jangi Pakahi and so far as their shares in the disputed lands are concerned there is no dispute.