S.T. Kharche, J.

1.Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

1. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-12-1999 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Achalpur, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 88 of 1996 confirming the judgment and decree dated 12-7-1996 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Achalpur, in Regular Civil Suit No. 431 of 1992 by which the suit was partly decreed and the appellant/defendant was directed to deliver the possession of 4 gunthas of land which is said to be under encroachment as shown in the measurement map (Ex.25) drawn by the surveyor.

.3. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant contended that the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 5/1-B is owned by the plaintiff whereas agricultural land bearing Survey No. 5/1 is owned by the defendant. He further contended that the appellate Court clearly recorded a finding that there is no

.dispute between the parties as regards the area of the land respectively held by them. He contended that reliance was placed by both the Courts below on the map (Ex.25) drawn by the cadastral Surveyor after taking the measurements of the plaintiffs land only. He contended that the said map cannot be said to be accurate in view of the provisions of Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the trial Court for fresh decision in accordance with law after making an appointment of Cadastral Surveyor for taking the joint measurements of the land owned by the respective parties.

2. 4. Mr. Deshmukh, learned counsel, for the respondent/plaintiff contended that both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding that the defendant has made encroachment to the extent of 4 gunthas of land and there is no reason for this Court to disturb that finding. He contended that no substantial question of law arises in this Appeal and the same may kindly be dismissed.

3. 5. I have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that the Court shall presume that the maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Govt. or any State Govt. were so made and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purpose of any cause must be proved to be accurate. (emphasis supplied).

.6. Bare reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal that the maps or plans made for the purpose of any cause must be proved to be accurate. The onus of proving that such a map is accurate lies on the party who produced it. The maps must be proved by the person who has prepared them. They are post litem motesa and lack necessary trustworthiness. Where the

.maps are made for the purpose of a suit there is, even apart from fraud which may exist, a tendency to colour, exaggerate and favour which can only be countenanced by swearing the maker to the trust of his plan. Hence, there is no presumption of accuracy in respect of the map or plan which is made for a particular cause and it goes without saying that a map prepared for the purpose of a particular suit must, therefore, be duly proved and it is not admissible in evidence in absence of proof of its accuracy. In any case, in which there is a dispute about an encroachment or dimension of a site, the first essential is to get an agreed map and if the parties cannot agree on one, a Commissioner must be appointed to prepare the same and/or subsequent reference in the pleadings or judgment to place the mark on a map should be referred to this map which must be attached to the decree and signed by the Judge. In the absence of such a map, the decree is probably meaningless and execution means virtually starting the case over all again. The map should be drawn with the North at the top and letters marking points should not be put inside ways or upside down.

.7. I may usefully refer the decision of our High Court in the case of Krishn