The judgment highlights the importance of proving the accuracy and trustworthiness of maps or plans made for the purpose of a cause, as per Section 83 of the Evidence Act.

T. K. JOSEPH, J. :- The subject-matter of this litigation is an extensive hill tract in Karimba Desom, Walluvanaud Taluk, South Malabar. The suit was instituted by the 1st plaintiff who was appointed Receiver in O. S. No. 112 of 1933 of the Subordinate Judges Court Palghat, to manage the estate including Sthanom and Dewaswain properties of Kuthiravattah Nayar, the 3rd plaintiff in the suit. During the pendency of this suit the 1st plaintiff was removed from office and the 2nd plaintiff was appointed as Receiver, in O. S. No. 100 of 1947 on the file of the District Court, South Malabar.

He in turn was replaced by the 4th plaintiff who was appointed by the Court of Wards which obtained management of the estate later. According to the original plaint, the properties described in the schedule appended to the plaint belonged to Pulappatta Thiruvilayanad Bhagavathi Devaswom owned by the Kuthiravattathu estate. These lands are marked as plots A, A1 and A2 in the plan Ext. A44 filed along with the plaint. The Sthanom was enjoying the properties, granting leases and licences to several persons for cutting timber.

On 3rd January 1943 such a lease was granted to one Athan Rowther and on the termination of the period of one year, he surrendered possession. Thereafter the right of cutting trees of specified girth was granted to the 11th defendant by a deed dated 10-3-1946 and while the latter was in possession, Defendants 1 to 9 obstructed his work. He took up the matter to the Criminal Court but did not pursue the same. However he informed the 1st plaintiff about the matter and on enquiry the 1st plaintiff found that Defendants 1 to 4 who claimed title under Defendants 5 to 9 had entered into possession of plot A1. and that they had cut and removed trees in the said plot and planted the land with rubber.

They were also found attempting to trespass into plot A2. As Defendants 1 to 4 denied the plaintiffs title, She suit was filed for establishing the title of the sthanam, for recovery of plot Al from Defendants 1 to 4, for an injunction restraining the defendants from entering into possession of plot A2 and for damages for waste committed in the property. The plaint was later amended so as to include an alternative prayer for recovery of plot A2 also in case the defendants were found to be in possession of the same. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 12 filed written statements.

The defence contentions so far as they are material, for the decision of this appeal are that neither the Devaswom nor the Estate of Kuthiravattathu Nair has title to the properties, that Defendants 1 to 4 are in possession of plots A1 and A2 having obtained the same under Defendants 5 to 9 who had a kanom right under the 10th defendants Kattussery family. They contend that their possession is lawful and that they are not liable to be evicted. The 10th defendant who was Kattussery Mootha Nair at the time of the institution of the suit died later and his successor was impleaded as supplementary 12th defendant - The latter claimed these properties as belonging to his sthanom and thus denied the title of the plaintiffs. After an elaborate trial the court below found that the plaintiff had not established title or possession within 12 years of the suit and the suit was accordingly dismissed with costs. The 4th plaintiff has therefore preferred this appeal.

2. The main question which arises for decision is that of title. Defendants 5 to 9 and under them Defendants 1 to 4 admittedly are entitled to the land lying to the east of the hill tract belonging to the 3rd plaintiffs estate. The real dispute between the parties is whether the disputed land forms part of the 3rd plaintiffs estate or whether the same is Included in the lands owned by the 12th defendants sthanum, demised to the family of Defendants 5 to 9. As the land is unsurveyed, the matter has to be decided without the aid of revenue records relating to the same.

However it was agreed by both sides that the