JUDGMENT K.P. Singh, J. 1. This is a defendants' Second Appeal arising out of a suit for permannent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the disputed land. The plaintiff has claimed right in the disputed land as being Pichhwara of the plaintiff's house, whereas the defendants-appellants had claimed right in the disputed land as their Khalihan. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit but the lower appellate court has given judgment for the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate court the defendants have approached this Court in the above noted second appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants has raised two questions of law for consideration. Firstly that the lower appellate court has acted illegally in relying upon the chak map prepared in a case which is still pending. It has been emphasised before me that the Commissioner, who had prepared the chak map, had not been examined in the suit giving rise to the present appeal, therefore, the appellate courts should not place reliance upon the map in its judgment. The second contention raised on behalf of the defendants-appellants is to the effect that there is no definite finding regarding the alleged threat advanced by the defendants ; therefore, the impugned judgment should be set aside and the case should be sent back to the lower appellate court for re-examining the claims of the parties. 3. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the appellants has referred to a ruling reported in 1945 Cal. page 492 Dwijesh Chandra Roy v. Naresh Chandra Gupta as well as the ruling reported in 63 Indian Cases page 727 Hafiz Muhammad Ibrahim v. Pandey Chandan Singh. 4. I have examined the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and I have gone through the aforesaid rulings. I think that the appellate court has recorded categorical finding of fact against the defendants-appellants. Their case of claiming the land as Khalihan has been found as talse. It has also been found by the lower appellate court that the disputed land is Pichwara of the plaintiff's house and the same has been in possession of the plaintiff. I think that the appellate court has recorded categorical finding of fact against the defendants-appellants. Their case of claiming the land as Khalihan has been found as talse. It has also been found by the lower appellate court that the disputed land is Pichwara of the plaintiff's house and the same has been in possession of the plaintiff. In AIR 1945 Calcutta 492 Dwijesh Chandra Roy v. Naresh Chandra Gupta a Division Bench of that Court, has observed at page 494 as below :- ".........A map by itself is nothing but statements made by the maker by means of lines and pictorial representation instead of by word of mouth as to the state or configuration of a particular site and the objects standing thereon To admit in evidence a map without calling the maker thereof is the same as admitting in evidence statements made by a third party who is not called as a witness. In other words, it amounts to admitting hearsay ". 5. In the State of U. P. the following amendments have been made by U. P. Civil Laws Reforms Act No. 24 of 1954 : "90-A (1) Where any registered document or a duly certified copy thereof or any certified copy of a document which is part of the record of a court of justice is produced from any custody which the court in the particular case considers proper, the court may presume that the original was executed by the person by whom it purports to have been executed. (2) This presumption shall not be made in respect of any document which is the basis of a suit or of a defence or is relied upon in the plaint or written statement. " 6. In the present case the chak map is a piece of evidence and is a part of the court record, therefore, certified copy thereof was rightly relied upon by the court below. The aforesaid chak map is not the basis of the plaint, therefore, it was rightly relied upon by the lower appellate court. " 6. In the present case the chak map is a piece of evidence and is a part of the court record, therefore, certified copy thereof was rightly relied upon by the court below. The aforesaid chak map is not the basis of the plaint, therefore, it was rightly relied upon by the lower appellate court. The above mentioned ruling of the Calcutta High Court cannot render any help to the defendant appellants in the facts and circumstances of the present case due to amendment in the Evidence Act made by Act No. 24 of 1954 in this State and has been extracted above in the form of Section 90-A. For the sake of arguments even if it is assumed that the lower appellate court has wrongly referred to the chak map in its judgment, there is other evidence on record to prove the situation of the disputed land and the claim put forward by the plaintiff-opposite party. Section 167 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as below :- "The improper admission or rejection of evidence shall not be ground of itself for a new trial or reversal of any decision in any case, if it shall appear to the court before which such objection is raised that, independently of the evidence objected to and admitted, there was sufficient evidence to justify the decision or that, if the rejected evidence had been received, it ought not to have varied the decision ". 7. In the present case even if reference to chak map in the judgment of the lower appellate court is excluded, there is enough evidence to prove the claim of the plaintiff in respect of Pichhwara land to the plaintiff's house. 8. In the circumstances of the present case the defendants' claim has been rightly negatived by the lower appellate court. As regards necessary finding on the question of threat or envasion, it is sufficient to observe that the defendants had not denied that they had claimed the disputed land as their Khalihan. They had denied the claim of the plaintiff in the disputed land and they had asserted their right in the disputed land. Therefore, it is evident that the defendants were trying to grab the disputed land belonging to the plaintiff. They had denied the claim of the plaintiff in the disputed land and they had asserted their right in the disputed land. Therefore, it is evident that the defendants were trying to grab the disputed land belonging to the plaintiff. Even if there is no categorical finding on the question of threat or invasion, it is apparent that the defendants have an eye upon the disputed land and they are asserting their right to the same 9. For the foregoing discussions I do not find any merit in this second appeal. To my mind no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed under Order 41 Rule 11 CPC. Appeal dismissed.