The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility of private maps as evidence when attached to conveyance documents and necessary to understand or explain the documents themselves.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal on behalf of the defendant in a suit brought by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession of a small strip of land on declaration of the plaintiffs' title thereto.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs' case is that their father had purchased holding No. 34 in ward No. 1 of the Nabadwip Municipality which was included within C. S. Plot 1177 of C. S. Khatian No. 4161 of Mouza Nabadwip. It is claimed that the disputed land, which is a narrow strip about 2ft. in breadth and about 57ft. in length appertains to the said holding and as such had been in their possession. C. S. Plot 1178 which lies to the south of plot 1177 belongs to the defendant. To the west of plaintiffs' Plot no. 1177 is C. S. Plot 1176 used for a long time as a common passage by the people in the locality. On 16-5-1942, it is alleged, the defendant dispossessed the plaintiffs from the narrow strip by raising pillars on it and having it fenced off.

( 3 ) THE defence is that the disputed land appertains to the defendant's Plot No. 1176 and not to that of the plaintiffs' plot No. 1177. A platform on a portion of the disputed land was also alleged to have been constructed by the predecessor in interest of the plaintiffs with the permission of Gandheswari a predecessor in interest of the defendant in respect of the plots now owned by him.

( 4 ) BOTH the Courts have come to the conclusion that the strip of land lies within the plaintiffs' plot and accordingly decreed the suit. The principal question is one of parcel or no parcel. The dispute is evidently more or less a boundary dispute. The findings arrived at are assailed before me principally on two grounds: (1) That the learned District Judge, had relied on two plans attached to EXS. 2 and 2 (d), but he ought to have been held those being private maps they were not properly proved; and (2) the test applied for determining who is in possession is not according to the accepted legal principles.

( 5 ) AS indicated already, the land in suit is a very narrow strip. The learned District Judge has considered fully the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case and has given satisfactory reasons as to why the map as prepared by the Commissioner cannot be accepted. The maps attached to EXS. 2 and 2 (d) have been treated as important pieces of evidence. Exhibit 2 is the conveyance by which plaintiff's father had purchased C. S. plot 1177 on 3-6-1924 from the guardian of the minors to whom the property belonged. In the document the boundaries are described. Attached to this is a plan drawn to a scale which is referred to in the document itself.

( 6 ) EXHIBIT 2 (d) is the conveyance executed by the Sarkars in favour of the father of the minors who became subsequently the vendors to the plaintiffs. A plan is also attached to this document.

( 7 ) THESE two documents were duly proved but on behalf of the defendant it is urged that these maps being private maps their accuracy has to be proved before they can be taken into evidence. The learned Munsif has given effect to this objection and he did not accept these maps to have been duly proved. The suit was decreed on evidence other than those two maps. The learned District Judge, however, held that if these maps stood by themselves they could not have been treated as having been proved but at least in the case of EX. 2, if not also EX. 2 (d), the map was a part of the conveyance and the deleniations in the map are illustrative of the descriptions of the boundaries as given in the schedule to the document. The maps were accordingly taken into consideration and were treated as important pieces of evidence.

( 8 ) I agree with the conclusion reached by the learned District Judge that the oral evidence as adduced about the preparation of the maps is not sufficient by itself to prove the accuracy of the maps.

( 9 ) THE distinction between public and private maps is well settled. Section 36, Evidence Act, provides for the admissibility of publis