JUDGMENT Chakravartti, J. - The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the appellant for a declaration of her title to the eastern portion of a plot of land, bearing C. S. Dag No. 1834 and for recovery of its possession from defendant 1 on removal of certain obstructions set up by him. The trial Court decreed the suit, but on appeal the lower appellate Court dismissed it The plaintiff's case was that plot No. 1834 appertained to Mouza Ismail and belonged to one Ramanuj Roy as a part of that Mouza which he held in a rent-free tenure under the Panchakote Raj. By a registered potta, dated 29th June 1926, Ramanuj granted her a mokurari lease of a portion of this along with another plot and since then she had been in possession by growing vegetables thereon till March 1940, when she was dispossessed by defendant 1. The latter, taking advantage of her absence from Asansol, erected some brick pillars and also put up a thatched shed. This he did under a false claim that the land appertained to a jama of Rs. 130-9-7 in Mouza Budha which was held by certain persons in a mokarari tenure under the Panchakote Raj. The claim made by defendant 1 was on the basis of certain wrong entries in the record-of-rights which one Ramesh Chandra Hazra, father of defendants 2 to 6, had contrived to secure with the assistance of the settlement officials. He had caused a similar entry to be made with respect to plot No. 1832, held by the plaintiff under a different lease, and has similarly dispossessed her, but she had succeeded in recovering that plot by a suit which was fought up to the High Court and in which it was declared that the plot appertained to Mouza Ismail. Plot No. 1834 too did not appertain to Mouza Budha but appertained to Mouza Ismail and it had all along been in the possession of Ramanuj, in his own right and adversely to all others, before the settlement with the plaintiff and it had been in her possession after the settlement till she was dispossessed. 2. The plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits, but subsequently withdrew this claim with liberty to bring a fresh suit thereon. Two written statements were filed, one by defendant 1 and the other by defendants 2 to 6. 2. The plaintiff also prayed for mesne profits, but subsequently withdrew this claim with liberty to bring a fresh suit thereon. Two written statements were filed, one by defendant 1 and the other by defendants 2 to 6. Defendant 1 pleaded that as recorded in the record of rights, plot No. 1834 appertained to Mouza Budha and formed a part of the lands of a mokurari jama of Rupees 130-9-7 held by one Sripati Daw and others under the Panchakote Raj. Those persons sold the plot to Ramesh Chandra Hazra by a registered kabala, dated 2nd September 1919, and Ramesh, in his turn, sold it to defendant 1 by a registered kabala, dated 15th October 1920. The land had previously been in the possession of Sreepati Daw and others and then of Ramesh and it came into the possession of defendant 1 with his purchase. He had since been in possession in his own right and adversely to all others, like his predecessors, and had pot up the pillars and the shed as soon as he had made the purchase. The plaintiff had never any title, her story of possession and dispossession was untrue and, in any event, her suit was barred by limitation. Defendants 2 to 6 supported the case of defendant 1 and added that they had no subsisting interest in the land and had unnecessarily been made parties. 3. Three settlement papers were exhibited in the case. One was the C. S. Map of Mauza Ismail, Ex. E-1, which shows plot No. 1834 as appertaining to that Mouza. Another was the C. S. Map of the Asansol Municipality, comprising lands appertaining to about ten mouzas, in which those appertaining to mouza Budha are marked off in sheet No. 5, Ex. E-1 (1), by the Bengali letter "GA". There is no separate C. S. Map of Mouza Budha and the lands of that Mouza, as shown in the map of the Asansol Municipality, do not include plot No. 1834. The third paper exhibited was the C. S. Khatian of the jama of Rupees 130-9-7 Ex. B-(11), published in the year 1921. In this Khatian the name of the Mouza is given as Mouza Ismail, but the revenue survey number given is 1664 which is the number of Mouza Budha. The revenue survey number of Mouza Ismail is 1652. The third paper exhibited was the C. S. Khatian of the jama of Rupees 130-9-7 Ex. B-(11), published in the year 1921. In this Khatian the name of the Mouza is given as Mouza Ismail, but the revenue survey number given is 1664 which is the number of Mouza Budha. The revenue survey number of Mouza Ismail is 1652. The Khatian comprises five plots of which plot No. 1834 is the third and against it, in the "remarks" column, appears the entry, "Khang Dang Ramesh Chandra Hazra" which means "possessor, Ramesh Chandra Hazra, by purchase." The jama as a whole is shown to be in the possession of eight groups of persons, mostly Daws, severally denominated by the Bengali letters 'Ka' to 'Ja'. It is admitted that Mouza Budha lies to the immediate north of Mouza Ismail and it is clear that plot No. 1834 lies very near the border. The plaintiff does not claim any interest in Mouza Budha, nor does defendant 1 claim any interest in any land of Mouza Ismail. The only questions therefore are whether the plot in dispute appertains to the one mouza or the other and, secondly to whichever mouza it may appertain, whether the title of the party, entitled to it on the mouza basis, has been destroyed by adverse possession. Since the plaintiff's suit is one for ejectment, there is also the question whether she was in possession within twelve years of the suit which, in the facts of the present case, is only stating the second question in another form. 4. The learned Munsif held that plot No. 1834 appertained to Mouza Ismail. He observed that the oral evidence adduced on the point was valueless and equity valueless were the documents evidencing the various transactions, since, in them the parties interested had made statements according to their own interest. Referring next to the settlement papers, he observed that the map of the Asansol Municipality was not of much assistance, but it at least disproved the defence contention that a portion of Mouza Budha had been included in the map of Mouza Ismail, since in that case such portion might be expected to be demarcated by a letter as in the map of the municipality. As regards the other two papers, he held that since the plot in question was recorded as within Mouza Ismail, it lay upon the defendant to prove that it really appertained to Budha, but for that purpose the entries in the Khatian as regards the revenue survey number and the jama could be of no avail, since they were contradicted by the other entry as regards the plot being within Mouza Ismail. The conclusion at which the learned Munsif arrived was that defendant 1 had not succeeded in rebutting the presumption arising from the record and that the entries in the Khatian, so far as they supported the defendant's case, had been procured by the holders of Mouza Budha. Reference was also made to certain neighbouring plots and it was observed that if they appertained to Mouza Ismail, about which there was no dispute, it was impossible that plot No. 1834 should appertain to Mouza Budha. As regards possession, the learned Munsif, on an exhaustive review of the evidence, held that defendant 1 had not been able to prove either of the three modes alleged by him, viz., erection of pillars immediately after his purchase, simultaneous erection of the shed and continuous growing of vegetables there, after. On the other hand, the plaintiff had proved her possession till she was dispossessed in 1940, so that there could be no question of the defendant having acquired title by adverse possession or of the plaintiff's suit being barred by time. These findings were reversed on appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the statutory presumption attached only to the C. S. Khatian which must prevail over the C. S. Map and that the learned Munsif had been wrong in placing the onus on the appellant to show that the lands did not appertain to Mouza Ismail on the ground that the lands were included in the C. S. plan of Monza Ismail, although in the C. S. Khatian, they were recorded to be lands of Revenue Surrey Mouza Budha, No. 1664. He then proceeded to hold that the plaintiff had failed to rebut the presumption arising from the Khatian and there was no reason why the lands "should not be held to appertain to Mouza Budha, as recorded in the Khatian." The learned Judge observed that the northern boundary of Mauza Ismail and the southern boundary of the material portion of Asansol Municipality bad been indicated by dotted lines which were not the indicia for Mouza boundaries; that the map of the Asansol Municipality did not show that all the lands of Mouza Budha had been included therein; and that it could not be held that the holders of Mouza Budha had fraudulently caused the entries in favour of that mouza to be made. 5. As regards possession, the learned Judge did not discuss the evidence in his judgment, but simply stated that there was "no sufficient reason for giving preference to the testimony of the P. W.'s having regard to the record of rights." He then recorded a finding that the plaintiff had not proved her possession or that of her lessor for the statutory period but defendant 1 had proved such possession. Both Courts remarked on the fact that the revenue survey maps had not been relayed and the appellate Court observed that the plaintiff did not avail herself of an opportunity offered to her even at the appellate stage. In support of the present second appeal by the plaintiff, Mr. De urged two points. He contended in the first place that the learned Judge was wrong in law in discarding altogether the C. S. Map of Mouza Ismail to which also a presumption of correctness attached; and secondly, that the learned Judge's finding as to possession being based on his view of the record of rights which itself was partial and mistaken, could not properly be sustained. In so far as Mr. De insisted that a C. S. Map also carried a presumption of correctness under S. 103B, Ben Ten. Act, I am unable to accept his first contention as correct. In so far as Mr. De insisted that a C. S. Map also carried a presumption of correctness under S. 103B, Ben Ten. Act, I am unable to accept his first contention as correct. I was referred to the judgment of this Court in S. A. No. 2409 of 1939, which arose out of the plaintiff's litigation over plot No. 1832 and in which S. K. Ghose J. may be said to have assumed for argument's sake that the statutory presumption attached to both the map and the Khatian and that in order to form a proper view of the record-of-rights as a whole, both must be taken into consideration. I do not read the judgment as having decided the point in this sense, but if it so decided it, I, with due respect, take a different view. Under S. 103B (5), Ben. Ten. Act, every entry in a record-of-rights finally published shall be presumed to be correct, until it is proved by evidence to be incorrect. It is clear that in order that the statutory presumption may attach to an entry, it must occur in a document which is a part of the record-of-rights and which has been finally published. As far as I can gather from the relevant provisions of law and procedural rules, a C. S. Map is no part of the record-of-rights, as the term is used in the Bengal Tenancy Act, and it is never finally published. Taking the Act first, S. 101 provides that the Provincial Government may make an order directing that a survey be made and a record-of-rights prepared in respect of all lands in any local area, estate or tenure. This section suggests that a survey is only a preliminary proceeding to be undertaken in order to the preparation of a record-of-rights but it is not by itself conclusive that a map prepared at the survey cannot be a part of the record-of-rights. The next section, however, enumerates the particulars which may be recorded, if the Government so directs, when an order under S. 101 has been made and although the word 'recorded' may include 'recorded in a map,' the particulars enumerated are not appropriate to a map but are only appropriate to a written document. The next section, however, enumerates the particulars which may be recorded, if the Government so directs, when an order under S. 101 has been made and although the word 'recorded' may include 'recorded in a map,' the particulars enumerated are not appropriate to a map but are only appropriate to a written document. Proceeding next to S. 103A, sub-s. (1) of that section provides that when a draft record-of-rights has been prepared, it shall be published in the prescribed manner and sub-s. (2) provides that after objections have been heard and corrections made, the record shall be finally framed and finally published. It is clear that only that is finally published which is first published as a draft. 6. Turning next to the rules framed by the Government under S. 189 (5), cls. (i) to (1), the first material provision is R. 51 which deals with "preliminary record-writing " It provides inter alia that after the survey operations have been completed, a draft record shall be prepared and that "the draft record shall consist of statements of rights which are hereafter styled the Khatians." Rules 52 and 53 deal with certain intermediate proceedings and R. 54 provides that the Revenue Officer shall publish the draft record-of-rights by placing it for public inspection at some convenient place. Rules 54 and 55 deal with certain further proceedings at which objections are to be heard, necessary corrections made, and a rent roll prepared and then comes R. 57 which provides that the final record shall be prepared in conformity with the draft record, as corrected and that it "shall consist of a series of Khatians prepared on forms which are generally similar to the forms used for Khatians of the draft record." Last comes R. 58 which provides for publication of the final record-of-rights. 7. It will appear from the above provisions that the C. S. Map has no place either in the draft or in the final record and it is not published either as a draft or finally. Rules 54 and 58 say in the clearest possible manner that the record-of-rights consists of of Khatians only. 7. It will appear from the above provisions that the C. S. Map has no place either in the draft or in the final record and it is not published either as a draft or finally. Rules 54 and 58 say in the clearest possible manner that the record-of-rights consists of of Khatians only. Again, that the map is something different from the record-of-rights will appear from R. 52 which deals with local verification of the draft Khatian, copies of which are distributed to the persons concerned, and speaks of corrections "in the map, in the draft record and in the copies of the Khatians which have been distributed." It will also appear from R. 59 which deals severally with distribution of the printed maps and copies of the final record. The matter is placed beyond argument by the form of the certificate of final publication which is required to be made under S. 103B (1) of the Act. Rule 476, occurring in the Settlement Manual, provides that the copy of the Khatians contained in the Special Collectorate or Public record is the final record; and R. 481 which sets forth the form of the certificate which is to be attached to the flyleaf of the volume containing the final record, shows that the certificate must include the following sentence, "The record-of-rights is contained in this volume." In that volume there is no map. 8. Mr. De contended that in the rules to which I have referred, a distinction is made between the record and the record-of-rights, the latter expression being wider than the first. This contention is plainly untenable. Reference need only be made to one of the numerous rules where the two expressions are used indiscriminately, and synonymously. Rule 58, after providing that the final "record-of-rights" shall be published by placing it for public inspection at some convenient place, goes on to provide that a proclamation shall previously be published, informing the people where the "record" will be open to inspection. Mr. De also referred me to a number of rules, appearing among the 'Technical Rules and Instructions of the Settlement Department', which would show that if and when the draft Khatian is corrected at the time of the local verification or on subsequent objections before the final publication, the map, if necessary, is corrected as well. Mr. De also referred me to a number of rules, appearing among the 'Technical Rules and Instructions of the Settlement Department', which would show that if and when the draft Khatian is corrected at the time of the local verification or on subsequent objections before the final publication, the map, if necessary, is corrected as well. That is true, but such corrections do not make the map a part of the record, nor does it make up for the want of final or any publication. 9. Mr. De in the last place contended that assuming the map was not a part of the record-of-rights, still the presumption of correctness, attaching to the Dag numbers occurring in the record, involved the correctness of the map where the Dags were depicted. His argument was that a Dag number had no meaning except with reference to the relevant map and if the Dag number was to be presumed to be correct, as it must be since it appeared in the Khatian, the map where the Dags were to be found must necessarily be presumed to be correct also. I cannot accept this contention as sound. A Dag number may have to be understood by reference to the relevant map. But the mere entry of a Dag number in a Khatian does not involve any statement that the Dag has been correctly and properly included in the map from which it has been taken. It merely means that the particulars stated in the Khatian relate to the piece of land which has been depicted in a certain map under the Dag number mentioned. It is merely a specification without any assurance of correctness. For the above reasons, I am of opinion that a C. S. Map, not being a part of the record-of-rights and not being finally published, cannot claim the presumption of correctness provided for in S. 103B, Ben. Ten. Act, and that the learned Judge in holding that the presumption attached only to the Khatian, was right. I do not, however, think that a C. S. Map can be discarded altogether. It is at least a piece of evidence and may also claim some presumption of correctness otherwise than under S. 103B because, to use the well-worn phrases, it is prepared by public officers with considerable formality and in the course of proceedings conducted with the greatest possible publicity. It is at least a piece of evidence and may also claim some presumption of correctness otherwise than under S. 103B because, to use the well-worn phrases, it is prepared by public officers with considerable formality and in the course of proceedings conducted with the greatest possible publicity. The learned Judge was, therefore, not right in leaving the map entirely out of consideration. 10. The learned Judge, in my opinion, also committed a more serious error. He entirely overlooked a most material entry in the Khatian itself and because he overlooked it, misunderstood the judgment of the learned Munsif. The latter had never said that the map must prevail over the Khatian or that the onus lay on defendant 1 to prove that plot No. 1834 appertained to Mouza Budha simply because the map showed it as appertaining to Mouza Ismail. Apart from the map, the Khatian itself gives the name of the mouza as Mauza Ismail, and there is no reason to think that when the learned Munsif threw the onus on defendant 1 on the ground that the lands had been "recorded within Mouza Ismail," he did not mean recorded in the Khatian as well as in the map. In including the map he may have been in error, so far as the presumption under S.103B is concerned, but the learned Judge was equally in error in excluding from consideration the entry of Mouza Ismail in the Khatian itself. That entry certainly carries a presumption of correctness. The Khatian gives the name of one mouza and the number of another and prima facie there is at least as much reason why the name should prevail over the number as vice versa. In coming to a proper conclusion, both entries must be considered, together with the map for such limited evidentiary value as it may have, and the learned Judge's finding, being based only on a part of the record-of-rights, cannot possibly be sustained. He attended to only one of the two voices in which the record speaks. 11. Mr. Mukherjee who appeared for defendant 1 pointed out that the map of Mauza Ismail included some land above the tri-junction pillar from which plot 1 of that mouza had been measured. He attended to only one of the two voices in which the record speaks. 11. Mr. Mukherjee who appeared for defendant 1 pointed out that the map of Mauza Ismail included some land above the tri-junction pillar from which plot 1 of that mouza had been measured. Even so, it does not appear that plot 1834 is above the tri-junction line and at any rate this only proves the necessity of further investigation as to whether a map, which purports to be a map of Mouza Ismail, really includes some land outside it. In view of what has been said above, little need be said about the learned Judge's finding as to possession. As pointed out already, he finds no reason to believe the witnesses for the plaintiff, "having regard to the record-of-rights." There is no discussion of the evidence and no consideration of the reasons given by the learned Munsif in support of his finding. Quite obviously, the learned Judge's finding as to possession was influenced almost wholly by his finding as to the record of rights and if the latter finding cannot stand, as I have held it cannot, the finding as to possession cannot stand either, quite apart from the fact the learned Judge reversed the finding of the learned Munsif without discussing the evidence or his reasons. The dispute as to title in the present case is really a dispute as to a mouza boundary. In deciding such disputes, the revenue-survey map is of the greatest value and as would appear from R. 352 of the Settlement Manual, in Cadastral surveys too, reference must be made to the boundary as laid down in the course of the revenue survey. I, therefore, thought that it would at least be an advantage to have the revenue survey map relaid, if it was not a necessity, and on my enquiring of Mr. De, he informed that his client was now prepared to have a local investigation. But since she did not take, in either of the Courts below, a step which was necessary to prove her case, although it was suggested to her, she can now be allowed an opportunity only on terms. The terms I would impose are that she must first pay defendant 1, the costs of the trial and the lower appellate Courts, being altogether a sum of us. The terms I would impose are that she must first pay defendant 1, the costs of the trial and the lower appellate Courts, being altogether a sum of us. 78-8-9 which defendant 1 will be entitled to retain, irrespective of the ultimate result of the case. 12. In the result, I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and the decree appealed from and remand the case to the lower appellate Court for a re-hearing of the appeal in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and, if a local investigation be taken out, after a relay of the settlement maps of Mouza Ismail and the Budha portion of the Asansol Municipality as also the revenue survey maps of the new mouzas and on such further evidence relative to the local investigation as may be adduced, together with the evidence already on record. Such local investigation is to be directed only if, within a month of the arrival of the record at the lower appellate Court, the plaintiff deposits in Court the sum of Rs. 78-8-9 as costs of the suit and the appeal, payable to defendant 1, if she has not paid or deposited such costs already. If the amount be deposited as directed above or is already in deposit, defendant 1 will be entitled to withdraw it without furnishing security to retain the same, irrespective of the ultimate result of the case. If the said costs be not in deposit or are not deposited as directed, no local investigation is to be allowed and the appeal will be re-heard on the evidence already on record, but in that event the direction allowing defendant 1 to withdraw and retain the costs, irrespective of the ultimate result of the case, will not operate. Costs of this appeal will abide the result. Let the copies of the revenue survey map, filed in this Court, be accepted and sent down with the record.