JUDGMENT

1. The question in dispute is as to the site of the boundary between the Muzahs Gurkanda and Chhitpara, which be long to the plaintiff, and Lalitabari, which belongs to the defendant, purchased by him in 1905 (1312). The value of the land in question it not much, but the parties who are both rich Zemindars have been quarreling for years past and it is said that the tarrying on of a certain hat is indirectly concerned in the decision. The case has lasted some ten days, the parties being indisposed to settle the matter. The Subordinate Judge has held that the river which forms a boundary between the properties of the two parties has been incorrectly shown in the revenue survey map, at least so far as it passes between the Mouzahs Garkanda and Chhitpara on the one hand and Lalitabari on the Other. A long argument has been addressed to as on the various maps and the other aspects of the case. Whatever value may be attached to some of the points made by the appellant, it must be remembered that this is an appeal, and that whatever might have been the decision in the case at the original hearing, it is for the appellant to clearly establish that the judgment in appeal is wrong.

2. A thakbust was made of these mouzahs in 1855 and a Revenue Survey in 1857. At the survey, the boundary line between there two mouzahs was fixed in the middle of the river, above mentioned, which is called Bhogai and which river separated them. It is stated in the plaint that in the course of time the Bhogai river gradually went west-ward and entered into the plaintiff's two mouzahs and afterwards at the trial, that there was a sudden change in the river on some day in 1885. It is thus alleged that there has been a change in the course of the river from what it was at the time of the survey measurement, with the result that some of the land belonging to the plaintiff has been diluviated and has since reformed on the east bank of the river, either as firm lands or as adherent chars on the east of the present existing river, the center of which was the boundary line and which river now flows in the plaintiff's mouzahs, the exception mentioned being a small is land char, which is stated by the defendant to have been detached from the eastern bank after the survey.

3. The property in dispute is comprised in five schedules. The last including the river is now under attachment of a Criminal Court The plaintiff claims khas possession of the property in schedules Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and establishment of her title to derive profits from the river in Schedule 5. She also claims wasilat in Schedules 1 and 2 from the defendant for three years prior to the institution of the suit till the delivery of possession. As regards the property in Schedule 2 which includes the hat itself, it is admitted in appeal that this cannot be recovered since the suit in this respect is barred by adverse possession.

4. The defendant claims the lands in Schedules 1 to 4 as appertaining to his Mouzah Lalitabari. He tried to assert the exclusive right to be the owner of that mouzah and to the river with both of its banks. He denies that any land has been curtailed from the plaintiff's land as alleged. He originally claimed both tire land and water in suit as his own and says that both the thak and the survey maps are erroneous. This claim is, however, new abandoned, so far as regards the river in respect of which the defendant claims up to the middle line of its course, and the appeal has been argued on the footing that the boundary line between the plaintiff's and defendant's property is the middle line of the river Bhogai as the river was at the time of the survey in 1857.

5. For the plaintiff it is alleged that the survey map was correct and that the river has changed its position. What the defendant says is that the survey map is incorrect and that the river has not changed. The main issue then is whether the survey map is correct or not and whether the river has changed.

6. The plainti