The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of historical evidence and long-standing cultivation in boundary disputes, as well as the burden of proof in such cases.

Varadachariar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the Zamindar of Sivaganga for obtaining a modification of the boundary line marked by the survey authorities between two villages in the zamindary, namely, Kallvayal and Iluppakudi. The plaint also contained a prayer for possession to the extent to which the defendants might be found to be in possession of portions of the plot marked "I" in the sketch attached to the plaint.

2. Kalluvayal is to the south-east of Iluppakudi and continues to be an Ayan village of the zamindary. Iluppakudi had long ago been granted in inam to a temple and the defendants are the trustees of that temple for the time being. The Sivaganga estate was in the possession of certain European lessees for a period of nearly 30 years up to 1918 and during that period, it appears from Exs. B and C, that the Ayan village of Kalluvayal had been leased by the European lessees to one C.V. Section T. Narayanan Chetti for a period of 19 years (Paslis 1299 to 1317) and to one A. E, L. N. Lakshmanan Chetti for the subsequent period of ten years (Faslis 1318 to 1327). For some years after the expiration of the lease in favour of the European lessees, the Court of Wards continued to remain in management of the Sivaganga estate; and during their management, steps were taken to have a survey of the zamindari made. In the course of that, survey, the suit locality appears to have been surveyed during 1922-23. At the out-set, the surveyors included the whole disputed locality of more than 400 acres within the limits of Kalluvayal village, marking the whole extent as "waste." On a land complaint made by the trustees, in accordance with the provisions of the Madras Survey and Boundaries Act, the Survey Officer passed the decision, Ex. N, modifying the original demarcation in a manner to which we shall presently refer. Against this decision, the parties appealed to the Appellate Survey Officer and the Appellate Survey Officer by his order, Ex. 7, made a further modification as a result whereof the southern portion of the disputed locality measuring about 177 acres was allotted to Kalluvayal, while the northern portion measuring about 233 acres was included within the limits of Iluppakkudi.

3. Under Section 13, Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, this demarcation becomes conclusive subject to the result of a civil suit to be instituted within three years. The trustees of the temple did not institute any such suit but the zamindar instituted the present suit to have the Appellate Survey Officers decision modified so far as it was against him. The learned Subordinate Judge has passed a decree substantially in the plaintiffs favour, excluding only a small portion in the north-west corner of the disputed area. Against this decision, the defendants have filed this appeal. It will be convenient to refer to the accompanying rough sketch (adapted from the Commissioners plan, Ex. L), in stating the points in dispute between the parties and the decisions reached by the various authorities who have had to deal with this matter at different stages. The disputed area of about 410 acres is shown in the sketch by the diagram A-1, C, E, G-1, J, K, L, M, N, Q, S, T, V, W, X, Y, Z. The whole of this block was, in the first instance, included in Kalluvayal village. Under Ex. N, the block A, C, E, G, J, K, L, M, N, W, X, Y, Z, was assigned to Kalluvayal and the rest of the block to the west of the line N W was included in Illupakkudi. The Appellate Survey Officer cut the whole area into two by a straight line drawn from G-l and H westward to Q and assigned the area to the north of this line to Illupakkudi and the area to the south to Kalluvayal. The area to the north of the line G-1, H, Q, is accordingly the subject-matter of the present suit. The learned Subordinate Judge has assigned the whole of this area to Kalluvayal except the triangular bit to the north of a line connecting V with S-1.

4. The dispute has to be determined m