Banerjee, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by theplaintiffs respondents, to recover possession of some land as included withinthe permanently settled estate Taraf Joy Narain Ghosnl, which was purchased ata sale for arrears of Government revenue by their lessors, and of which theyalleged that they held a sudder putni. The defence of the principal defendantKanto Prashad Hazari was that the land did not form any part of the permanentlysettled estate Taraf Joy Narain Ghosal; that it was a part of the bed of theriver Sankho; that on the river being silted up the land was measured andsettled by Government with him; and that it had ever since remained in hispossession, and the plaintiffs title, if any, was consequently barred bylimitation. In support of his allegations the defendant put in a, map preparedby Babu Jagabundhu Sen, Deputy Collector, in the year 1869, and the firstCourt, after a local investigation, came to the conclusion that a portion ofthe disputed land fell within the permanently settled estate of the plaintiffslessor, and that the remainder fell outside that estate and was part of thechur lands settled with the defendant Kanto Prashad; and it accordingly limitedthe decree in favour of the plaintiffs to the land that fell to the north ofthe boundary line laid down in Babu Jagabundbu Sens map.

2. On appeal by the plaintiffs the lower Appellate Court setaside this decree of the first Court and remanded the case to that Court for afresh trial, holding that the map of the Deputy Collector, Babu Jagabundhu Sen,was no evidence against the plaintiffs, as they did not take any part in theproceedings in the course of which that map was prepared. After the remand, thefirst Court found that the land in dispute was wholly included within thepermanently settled estate Taraf Joy Narain Ghosal, and it decreed theplaintiffs claim in full, and upon appeal by the defendant Kanto Prashadagainst that decree, the lower Appellate Court has affirmed the same.

3. In second appeal it is contended on behalf of KantoPrashad Hazari, that the decree of the lower Appellate Court is wrong, first,because the map prepared by Babu Jagabundhu Sen, which was admissible inevidence under Sections 36 and 83 of the Evidence Act, and against theadmissibility of which no objection was taken by the plaintiffs, has beenimproperly excluded; and, secondly, because the lower Appellate Court, quiteindependently of the question of title, ought to have held that the suit wasbarred by limitation by reason of the defendants having been in adversepossession for more than twelve years.

4. Upon the first contention, we do not think that the mapin question is of a description which is one of those referred to in Sections36 and 83 of the Evidence Act. It purports to be a map of the silted bed of theriver Sankho. It is evidently, on the face of it, neither a thak map nor asurvey map, such as is made by, or under the authority of, Government forpublic purposes. It appears to have been made by Government for a particularpurpose, which is not a public purpose, namely, the settlement of the siltedbed of a certain river. That being so, we do not think that the provisions ofSections 36 and 83 of the Evidence Act are applicable to this map; and thisview is fully supported by the decisions of this Court in the cases of JunmajoyMullich v. Dwarkanath My tee I.L.R. Cal. 287, and Ram Chunder Sao v. BunseedhurNaik I.L.R. Cal. 741.

5. It remains now to notice the further contention underthis head that the Court of Appeal below in its remand order was wrong inrejecting this map when no objection was made as to its admissibility by theother side. A question might arise how far it is open to the appellant to raisethis contention now, he not having preferred any appeal against the remandorder; but we think upon the authority of the cases cited on behalf of theappellant by the learned Advocate-General, namely, the cases of Savitri v.Ramji I.L.R. 14 Bom. 232 and Rameshur Singh v. Sheodin Singh I.L.R. All. 510,that it is open to the appellant to raise this point, notwithstanding that hedid not appeal against the remand order. On the merits, however, we do notthink that the objection is tenable. The document was not absolutelyinadmissible in evidence. It was admissible in evidence, but its accuracy hadto be proved by the party producing it.. It was not therefore necessary for theplaintiffs to object to the filing of the document as one that was absolutelyinadmissible, and the fact of the plaintiffs not having objected to the filingof this map does not go to prove that it is accurate. The defendant adduced noevidence before the first Court to prove the correctness of the map; and thatbeing so, we think that the lower Appellate Court, when remanding the case tothe first Court, was quite right in holding that the map could not affect thequestion at issue between the parties.

6. It was argued that as the Amin had made use of this mapin making the local investigation and had referred to it in his report, theplaintiffs ought to have objected to the Amins report on the ground of thismap having been improperly used by him, and that as they did not do so, we musttake it that they had waived all objection to the accuracy of the map, and thatthe lower Appellate Court was therefore bound to accept it as accurately prepared.We, do not think there is much force in this contention. The Amin referred tothis map only for the purpose of drawing a certain line, but his conclusion wasthat the whole of the disputed land was included within the permanently settledestate Taraf Joy Narain Ghosal; and as that conclusion was entirely in favourof the plaintiffs, they were not bound to raise any objection to the Aminsreport. For all these reasons we must hold that the first ground urged beforeus has not been made out.

7. [After deciding the second point, also against theappellant, His Lordship continued].

8. The grounds taken before us, therefore, both fail, andthe appeal must be dismissed with costs.

.

Jagat Chandra Dutta and Ors.vs. Kanto Prashad Hazari(12.08.1895 - CALHC)