Choudury Nazirul Haq vs Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan and Others

Das, J.—The point that has been argued before us is that the learned Judge in the Court below erred in relying upon matters of description in the Kistwari Map. The plaintiff bases his title upon the Kistwari Map which bears the signature of Mr. Watson, who was at that time the Assistant Superintendent of Survey. The map shows that there existed in the Mouza in question two blocks of lands constituting two Jagirs, one of which was in the possession of Lala Gurdayal, the other being in the possession of Purai Chowdhary, heir of Tikaram Sipahi, Mr. Sultan Ahmad on behalf of the appellants has argued before us that we may, if we like, presume the correctness of the physical features represented in the map, but that we are not entitled to presume the correctness of the statements as to the possession of Purai Chodwhury and Lala Gurdayal Singh in the map I am unable to agree with this contention. Section 36 of the Evidence Act provides that "statements of facts in issue or relevant facts, made in published maps or charts generally offered for public sale, or in maps or plans made under the authority of Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts," There are decisions too numerous to mention that the Survey Map is evidence between the parties quantum valeat. Primarily it is evidence of possession but as has been pointed but, evidence of possession is always evidence of title; see Shusee Mookhee Dossee v. Bissessuree Debee 10 W.R. 343. It has been pointed out that co-operation of the parties interested in the measurement is required to be sought by the Survey Officers and that it is reasonable to presume that the parties were present at, and had notice of, the Survey proceedings. There is, therefore, good reason for receiving Survey Maps in evidence on the question of possession between the parties. It has been argued that to receive these maps in evidence on the question of possession is to allow a surveyor to usurp the functions of a Civil Court, In my opinion the argument is wholly unsustainable. It is true that a surveyor has no authority to decide any question of title between the parties, but as has been pointed out, he has authority to see what are the boundaries and bearings and also, I may add, as to who is in actual possession of the land, It is unnecessary to go through the cases which have been decided with reference to the question which has been argued before us. I may, however, usefully refer to Koomodinee Debia v. Poorno Chunder Mookerjee 10 W.R. 300, Shusee Mookhee Dossee V. Bissessuree Debee 10 W.R. 343, Ram Narain Dass v. Mohesh Chunder Banerjee 19 W.R. 202, Prosonno Chunder Roy v. The Land Mortgage Bank of India Limited 25 W.R. 453. and Satcowri Ghosh Mondal v. Secretary of State for India in Council 22 C. 252 : 11 Ind. Dec. 170.

I must dismiss these appeals with costs.

John Bucknill, J.

I agree,