Statements of boundaries in documents between third parties are not ordinarily admissible to prove possession or title unless they are against the pecuniary or proprietary interest of the person making them.

G. C. DAS, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the sole plaintiff against the judgment of the learned additional District Judge of Ganjam dismissing his suit.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present appeal are these: Plaintiff commenced an action for ejectment of the defendant from the disputed house situated at village sandhamara. According to the plaintiff the suit-house constituted his ancestral property and that at a family partition in 1949, one third share therein was allotted to him, and the remaining two-thirds share was allotted to his two uncles, arjun and Kandha. Plaintiff purchased the share of his two uncles on 19-12-1950 under two sale deeds Exts. 1 and 2. Thus, he became the sole owner of the entire property. The defendant who is the son-in-law of a sister of the plaintiff's uncle, arjun Padhan is said to have occupied the back portion of the house in February 1947, with the permission of Arjun who was at the time manager of the plaintiff's family. After the acquisition of the right of the entire house, the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the portion occupied by him but the defendant instead of vacating the back portion which was in his occupation in December 1950, took forcible possession of the front portion and denied plaintiff's title. Accordingly, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant denied the plaint allegations and contended that it was he who had built the house in dispute about thirty years ago on the suit-site which was his ancestral property and he was throughout in possession thereof in his own right.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional Subordinate Judge who hoard the suit at the first instance came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to prove the title of his ancestors and of himself. He further failed to prove possession within 12 years of the suit. He also failed to prove that the defendant's possession was a permissive one. Consequently, the Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiffs suit.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF carried an appeal against this judgment. In the appeal, the main contention raised was that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge erred in not accepting the evidence adduced by the plaintiff as reliable and in relying on certain documentary evidence adduced by the defendant which had not been duly proved. It was also contended that the absence of a title deed in the name of the plaintiff's ancestor, Madhu Padhan should not have been given any importance at all. The learned District Judge holding Ext-4 a copy of the registered deed of mortgage dated 28-3-1907 to be inadmissible in evidence and after taking into consideration both the oral and documentary evidence came to the same conclusion as the trial judge and held that the plaintiff had failed to prove his title and possession within 12 years of the suit. Thus, eventually he confirmed the judgment of the trial court and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. It is against this judgment that the present second appeal is directed.

( 6 ) MR. Panda on behalf of the appellant did not challenge the findings of fact, but raised two contentions before this Court-- (1) Ext. 4 is admissible; in other words the statements of the boundaries made therein are admissible under Section 32 (3)of the Indian Evidence Act; and (2) The appellate Court having rejected all the documents filed by the defendant except Exts. D and D/l should not have found possession with the defendant.

( 7 ) WITH regard to the first contention, Mr. Panda argued that the eastern boundary in the copy of the registered deed of mortgage dated 28-3-1907 executed by one ganga Bhuvan in favour of Udhab Bissoi the father of P. W. 1 had been described as the land of Madhu Padhan who was admittedly the plaintiff's grand-father. It was argued that if this document is admissible in evidence, it would clearly go to prove the plaintiff's case, the eastern boundary being in possession of Madhu padhan, the grand-father of the plaintiff. The opinion with re