The evidentiary value of maps and surveys made in India for revenue purposes and the presumption of law in favor of the rightful owner were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

1. The suit out of which this appeal has arisen relates to some plots of char lands in the bed of the river Boiran. Both the Courts below have decreed the plaintiffs' suit mainly on the finding that that part of the river was within the Zemindari of the plaintiff and the pro-forma defendants. The defendants have appealed and three points have been urged in support of the appeal.

2. In the first place, it is contended that the Court of appeal below has not only not given due weight to the Thak map but on the contrary has attached undue weight to the revenue survey map. It is conceded that according to the Thak map this part of the river would be included in the Zemindari of the -defendants which is contiguous to that of the plaintiff. According to the Revenue survey map the position would be otherwise. With reference to the Thak map the learned Subordinate Judge has accepted the reasons given by the Munsif for accepting the revenue survey map as correct in including the river in question within mouza Alamnagar the plaintiffs taluk. The reason given by the Munsif for his view is that he was so satisfied on a consideration of the whole evidence in the case which consisted of Government Batwara Chittas of 1846, several chittas from 1275 to 13.L5 filed by the plaintiff, the pottos and jama-bandi papers. Giving due consideration to all these items of evidence, the learned Munsif records his conclusion in the following words: "Considering the circumstances the thak loses much of the value usually attached to it." The Court of Appeal below has also attached great weight to the report of the Commissioner appointed in the case who held a local investigation and whose report has not been successfully challenged by any party. It is, however, pressed upon us that all other evidence should be subordinated to the thak map which was prepared so long ago as 1851. The survey map was prepared the next year, namely 1852 and in laying down the boundaries between the plaintiff's mouza Alamnagar and the defendants mouza Mirzapur it makes some deviation from the line as shown in the Thak map. The thak map is only a piece of evidence. It has been held in the case of Jagadindranath Boy v. Secretary of State for India 30 C. 291 : 30 I.A. 44 : 7 C.W.N. 193 : 5 Bom. L.R. 1 (P.C.), that maps and surveys made in India for revenue purposes are official documents prepared by competent persons and with such publicity and notice to persons interested as to be admissible and valuable evidence of the state of things at the time they are made They are not conclusions and may be shown to be wrong; but in the absence of evidence to the contrary they may be properly judicially received in evidence as correctly made. In fixing the boundary line between the estates there is no reason to suppose that greater weight should be attached to the thak map than to the Revenue survey map. If any evidence supports the survey map, it is open to a Court of fact to consider its evidentiary value in connection with other evidence in the case. We have been referred to several oases in which the evidentiary value of thak maps has been considered. These oases are appeals from original decrees in which the Court was invited to consider the evidence on the record, one of which was the thak map and in the special circumstances of each case relative value was attached to those maps. This matter, however, comes before us in second appeal. We are not in a position to say in considering the judgment of the lower Appellate Court in second appeal that that Court ought to have given more weight to one piece of evidence than to any other. The question with regard to the weight of evidence to be attached to thak maps is a question of fact. Such a question went up to their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Jagadindra Nath Boy v. Secretary of State for India 30 C. 291 : 30 I.A. 44 : 7 C.W.N. 193 : 5 Bom. L.R. 1 (P.C.), which was an appeal from the decree passed in second appe