JUDGMENT Geidt, J. - The subject-matter of the suit, out of which these two appeals arise, is a 4 annas 15 gundas share of mouzah Saturia. The Plaintiffs who are Respondents in this Court purchased at a Revenue sale the estate bearing Towzi No. 3842 and they brought this suit to obtain possession of the abovementioned share of Saturia as forming part of that estate. The defence was that the share in dispute formed part of the estate bearing Towzi No. 3846, and that it was held as a portion of a taluq comprised within that estate. The Subordinate Judge decided that the land in dispute belonged to Estate No. 3846 and not to Estate 3842; on appeal however the District Judge took the contrary view and decreed the suit, and these two appeals have accordingly been brought one by the proprietors of Estate No. 3846 and the other by the persons who claim to hold as taluqdars under that estate. The District Judge found that the only direct evidence available for the decision of the question before him was the thak map prepared in 1858. Certain entries in this map showed that mouzah Saturia was divided into four shares. With three of these shares we are not now concerned, the fourth share, 4 annas 10 gundas, in extent was shown as held by taluqdars, i.e., the present Defendants or their predecessors, as part of Estate No. 3842. This entry was made in the admission of the taluqdars themselves. 2. No steps were taken by the proprietors of Estate No. 3846 to have this entry corrected, although corrections were made by the Collector, as regards other entries as late as the year 1865, and although the proprietors of Estate No. 3846 were aware of the thakbust survey, as is shown by the fact that they signed the map of a neighbouring mouzah of which they were shown as proprietors. It was on these materials that the District Judge arrived at the conclusion that the 4 annas 15 gundas share of Saturia formed part of the Estate No. 3842. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants in both these appeals that the entries in the thak map are not evidence to show that the property in dispute was comprised within Estate No. 3842. 3. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants in both these appeals that the entries in the thak map are not evidence to show that the property in dispute was comprised within Estate No. 3842. These entries were made by the Amin not on his own knowledge but on information derived from others, and one therefore of little or no value as statements made on hearsay and though the Amin was required to show who was in possession of the land and may therefore have been right in showing that the 4 annas 15 gundas was in possession of taluqdars, he was not required to show and was not justified in shewing that the taluqdars paid rent to the proprietors of Estate No. 3842. 4. With regard to the last argument it may be observed that the possession of the proprietors was of the same kind as the possession of the taluqdars though in a more remote degree. The person in actual possession of the land were the raiyats; the taluqdars were in possession by receipt of rent from the raiyats, and the entry that the proprietors were in possession by the receipt of rent from the taluqdars was made on exactly the same evidence as the entry regarding the possession of the taluqdars, namely, the statement of the taluqdars' agent. These two entries moreover were confirmed exactly in the same way, viz., by the admission of the taluqdars themselves. The object of a thakbust survey and map is to ascertain and delineate the boundaries of the estates borne on the Revenue roll of the District, and when the Amin finds that a mouzah is comprised within several estates in undivided shares, he is bound to show the estates in which the shares are included otherwise the map would be incomplete. It is moreover not correct to say that an entry in a thakbust map is of no more value than any other statement made by a person on hearsay. 5. In Jagadindro Nath Roy v. Secretary of State for India 7 C.W.N. 193 : S.C. ILR 30 Cal. 291 (1902) their Lordships of the Privy Council have expressed their opinion as to the evidential value of thak and survey maps. 5. In Jagadindro Nath Roy v. Secretary of State for India 7 C.W.N. 193 : S.C. ILR 30 Cal. 291 (1902) their Lordships of the Privy Council have expressed their opinion as to the evidential value of thak and survey maps. At page 301 they say "maps and surveys made in India for revenue purposes are official documents prepared by competent persons and with such publicity and notice to persons interested as to be admissible and valuable evidence of the state of things at the time they are made. They are not conclusive and may be shown to be wrong but in the absence of evidence to the contrary they may be properly judiciously received in evidence as correct when made." 6. The circumstances under which thak and survey maps are prepared are also described in Nobo Koomar Dass v. Gobinda Chunder Roy 9 Cal. L.R. 305(1881). At page 308 Field, J., observes "people who are familiar with what takes place in these provinces when Survey Officers commence operations in a locality, are well aware that neighbouring proprietors do, as a rule, carefully watch their proceedings; and if the persons interested consider that the boundaries demarcated by these officers between any two estates are incorrect, they take immediate and prompt action to object and to have the map rectified." In the case now before us the proprietors of Estate 3846 knew of the survey proceedings as is shown by their, having signed the map of a neighbouring mouzah, and although mouzah Saturia was recorded as belonging in part to Estate No. 3842, the proprietors of Estate No. 3846 took no action to have that entry rectified, although other entries were rectified in the objection of persons interested. 7. For the Appellants Dr. Rash Behari Ghosh relied on two cases as showing that entries in thak maps are not evidence. In Kristo Moni Gupta v. The Secretary of State for India 3 C.W.N. 99 (1898) it was observed at p. 105 : "nor does it appear to us that the thak and survey maps of 1857 and 1859 in any way preclude the Plaintiffs from establishing their rights to the land in suit, unless they are otherwise barred. In Kristo Moni Gupta v. The Secretary of State for India 3 C.W.N. 99 (1898) it was observed at p. 105 : "nor does it appear to us that the thak and survey maps of 1857 and 1859 in any way preclude the Plaintiffs from establishing their rights to the land in suit, unless they are otherwise barred. It has been held in a series of cases that unless it can be proved that the person against whom a thak or survey is attempted to be used expressly consented to be delineation or admitted the correctness of such maps, they have no binding effect." But to say that a map has no binding effect is quite a different thing from saying that it is not evidence entirely to the question with which we are concerned in this appeal. Moreover in that case it was found that after the survey the proprietors objected to the settlement made in consequence of that survey, and thus impugned the correctness of the map. 8. The second case referred to is Jarao Kumari v. Lalon Moni ILR 18 Cal. 224 (1890) decided by the Privy Council. In that case the Defendant had mortgaged a mouzah with the exception of the debottar land comprised within that mouzah, and the extent of the debottar was stated in the mortgage deed to be 87 bighas. When the mortgagee brought a suit to realize the money due to him, the Defendant pleaded that a much larger quantity than 87 bighas was debottar and relied in a thakbust map in support of her plea with reference to this their Lordships say "the statements in this map of lands being debottar appeared on the face of it to have been made as pointed out by agents on behalf of the proprietor of the mouzah and the principal tenants in the presence of the agents of the holders of the estates in the neighbour-mouzahs. The Amin who made the map had to lay down the boundaries, but had no authority to decide what lands were debottar. The Amin who made the map had to lay down the boundaries, but had no authority to decide what lands were debottar. The value of the map must depend upon the enquiry made by the Amin, and the statements of what land were debottar may have been and probably were given by the Defendants' agents, no one being present to question the accuracy of them, their Lordships are of opinion that it (the thakbust) map was of no weight against the admission." Here again their Lordships do not say that the map was not evidence but was of no weight against other evidence under circumstances which are totally distinct from those obtaining in the present case. Not only had the Amin no authority to record land as debottar, but there was no one with local knowledge interested in correcting such an entry. In the present case it was the Amin's duty to record within what estate or estates monzah Saturia was comprised and any proprietor adversely affected by such an entry had the opportunity of rectifying it. The object of the thak map being to delineate the various estates borne on the Revenue roll of the district, the entry now under discussion becomes a relevant fact under sec. 36 of the Evidence Act, and it is clear on the authorities quoted that such entries in thakbust maps are evidence on which a Court may act, what is the probative force of the entry is not question with which we are called upon to deal. The District Judge has found on the entries In the map and on the attendant circumstances that at the time of the survey the 4 annas 15 gundas share formed part of Estate No. 3842, and on the authority of Syama Sundari Dasi v. Jagabandhu Sootar ILR 16 Cal. 186 (1888) it was open to him to hold that the same state of things existed at the time of the Permanent Settlement. We are unable to say that in drawing these conclusions the District Judge has committed any error of law and we must therefore dismiss these appeals with costs. Maclean, C.J. I concur.