D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is plaintiff s Second Appeal. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are as under : the suit was filed by the plaintiff-appellant for removal of alleged encroachment over the disputed land by the defendants No. 1 and 2 and for declaration that the defendant No. 2 has no right over the disputed mango tree and for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 2 from collecting fruits of the mango tree and also permanent injuction restraining the defedants No. 1 and 2 from causing obstruction to the plaintiffs passage to his field through the disputed land and passage. ( 2 ) THE defedant No. 5 who was subsequently deleted and the plaintiff are the real brothers. The dispute relates to survey No. 201/1 measuring 3 acres 17 gunthas. It was purchased by them under registered sale deed in the year 1943. The agricultural survey no. 201/2 belongs to the defendant No. 1 and survey No. 201/3 belongs to the defendant no. 2. These two plots are situated to the south of the plaintiffs land and are adjoining to the plaintiffs land. There is passage between survey No. 201/2 and 201/3 for going through the land of the plaintiff and this land has been used as passage by the plaintiff since beginning. The defendants No. 1 and 2 started causing obstruction to the passage by digging pits over it hence the suit was filed. ( 3 ) THE defendants No. 3 and 4 are brothers of the defendants No 1 and 2. They have admitted the case of the plaintiff. The defendant No. 5 was brother of the plaintiff. He could not join in the suit as plaintiff and subsequently he was deleted. ( 4 ) THE suit was contested by defendants No. 1 and 2 denying alleged encroachment made by them over the plaintiffs land. They also denied that the plaintiff is the owner of the disputed mango tree. The alleged right of passage through defendants land claimed by the plaintiff was also denied. It was also pleaded by them that defendant No. I constructed the house on the northern shedha of the land where he resides along with his family since last 30 years and is using the same for tethering cattle etc. The alleged right of passage through defendants land claimed by the plaintiff was also denied. It was also pleaded by them that defendant No. I constructed the house on the northern shedha of the land where he resides along with his family since last 30 years and is using the same for tethering cattle etc. The defendant No. 1 claimed title over the land in suit by adverse possession alleging that he had been in possession for more than 12 years openly, peacebly, without interruption and hostile to the title of the alleged owner. It was also pleaded that there was a demarcation of boundary between the land of the parties and that no encroachment has been made over the plaintiffs land. Regarding mango tree it is said to be standing on plot No. 120/3 owned by the defendant No. 2 and he is using that tree since more than 12 years and has become owner of the mango tree by adverse possession. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff regarding removal of encroachment and also in respect of mango tree. However, it decreed the suit for injunction in respect of the plaintiffs claim for passage over the land of the defendants and accordingly permanent injunction was granted to the defendants No. 1 and 2 not to cause obstruction over the plaintiffs passage. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved the plaintiff preferred the appeal which was dismissed. It was, therefore, this Second Appeal. ( 6 ) THE following substantial questions of law were formulated in this appeal. (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the decision of the courts below on the question of adverse possession in right ? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the defendants have established their contention of adverse possession ? (3) Whether the lower Courts were right in excluding from consideration the map prepared by the Survey Officer ? (4) Whether mere possession without open hostile possession would constitute adverse possession in law ? ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant was heard at length. While closing the matter Shri D,f. Amin, learned Counsel for the respondents appeared and stated that he was busy elsewhere hence he could not come. He however, stated that he supports the judgments of the two Courts below and has to say nothing more than that. ( 7 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant was heard at length. While closing the matter Shri D,f. Amin, learned Counsel for the respondents appeared and stated that he was busy elsewhere hence he could not come. He however, stated that he supports the judgments of the two Courts below and has to say nothing more than that. In view of this statement of the learned Counsel for the respondents, decree of the Trial Court in respect of the plaintiffs claim for passage which was confirmed by the lower Appellate Court requires no interference. Further, the respondent has not filed any appeal or cross-objection against the decree of the Trial Court or decree of the lower Appellate court on the point. Hence also the decree for permanent injunction in respect of the passage requires no interference. ( 8 ) COMING to the substantial question of law formulated in this appeal, the question nos. 1, 2 and 4 are interconnected and relate to the plea of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 regarding perfection of title over the disputed land and mango tree by adverse possession. The question No. 3 relates to non-consideration of two maps prepared by survey officer. The question No. 3 is proposed to be taken up first. ( 9 ) IT is clear from the record that at the instance of the plaintiff two survey maps were prepared by the surveyor. Exhibit 30 was prepared on 22. 10. 1974 and Exhibit 34 was prepared by surveyor on 10. 3. 1975. Exhibit 30 is certified copy of the map of survey No. 201/1 whereas Exhibit 34 is the certified copy of the map of survey Nos. 201/2 and 201/3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has been that these two maps were improperly rejected and excluded from consideration by the two Courts below. He contended that these maps were filed for showing actual encroachment over the appellants land. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court shows that Exhibits 30 and 34 are not original maps but certified copies of survey maps. Neither Sec. 36 nor Sec. 83 of the Evidence Act, helps the appellant in the contention that these two maps were liable to be considered. The judgment of the lower Appellate Court shows that Exhibits 30 and 34 are not original maps but certified copies of survey maps. Neither Sec. 36 nor Sec. 83 of the Evidence Act, helps the appellant in the contention that these two maps were liable to be considered. I do not find any force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that because these two certified copies of maps were exhibited in the Trial court, same should have been referred and considered in evidence. Simply because the document has been exhibited rightly or wrongly by the Trial Court the same cannot be read in evidence. Such document can be read in evidence only when it is a public document or the document admitted by the otherside or the document which has been proved in accordance with law. These two maps have not been proved in accordance with law because the Surveyors were not examined. Moreover these two certified copies and not original. No witness has appeared to state that these two certified copies are correct copies of original survey map and laikewise there is nothing on record to show that these maps are public documents and on the other hand the record shows that these maps were prepared by the surveyor at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant. These two maps were not prepared either under the authority of the State Government or Central Government. Genuineness of these two maps are not admitted by defendant-respondent. Section 36 of the Evidence Act reads as under : "36. Relevancy of statement in maps, charts and plans-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 the Central government or any State Government, as to matters usually represented or stated in such maps, charts or plans, are themselves relevant facts. " ( 10 ) THIS section relates to relevancy of statement in maps, charts and plans. Such statements in such maps, charts and plans can be said to be relevant facts only when such maps or charts are offered for public sale or is made under the authority of the Central government or State Government. As such statement of facts in issue or relevant facts shown in such maps are not relevant. Such statements in such maps, charts and plans can be said to be relevant facts only when such maps or charts are offered for public sale or is made under the authority of the Central government or State Government. As such statement of facts in issue or relevant facts shown in such maps are not relevant. Thus, under Sec. 36 of the Evidence Act those maps could not be considered to be relevant facts or relevant and admissible evidence. Section 83 of the Evidence Act reads as under :"83. Presumption as to maps or plans made by authority of Government The court shall presume, that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were so made, and are accurate, but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate. " ( 11 ) UNDER the above section Court shall presume the maps or plans to be accurate provided the same purports to have been made under the authority of State or Central government. It is the latter portion of Sec. 83 which can safely be applied in the present case because the two maps were prepared by the Surveyor for the cause of the plaintiff-appellant at his instance. Therefore, under the mandate of Sec. 83 of the evidence Act such maps are required to be proved to be accurate. Accuracy of such maps could be proved only when the Surveyors were examined and they would have stated that they carried out survey at the spot according to survey principles and the maps prepared by them are accurate and showing accurate position at the spot. Consequently the two Courts below did not commit any illegality in excluding from consideration the maps prepared by surveyor and were justified in excluding such maps from consideration. ( 12 ) MERELY because these maps were exhibited they did not become perse admissible in evidence. In State of Gujarat, practice is to exhibit even the written statement. In this case also the Trial Court in its judgment has mentioned that written statement of the defendants No. 1 and 2 is Exhibit 15 and that of the defendants No. 3 and 4 Exhibits 12 and 7 respectively. Thus, by exhibiting these written statements it cannot be said that they have become admissible or that they are evidence in themselves. Thus, by exhibiting these written statements it cannot be said that they have become admissible or that they are evidence in themselves. On the other hand the written statements are only pleadings of the defendants and such pleadings require proof. For the same reason mere exhibiting the two maps did not entitle the two Courts below to treat them as admissible piece of evidence. The question is therefore answered in affirmative. ( 13 ) COMING to the questions No. 1, 2 and 4, learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that the finding of the two Courts below on the plea of adverse possession is vitiated in law. According to him, mere assertion of possession by defendants No. 1 and 2 is not enough to uphold their title by adverse possession. He placed reliance upon the case of S. M. Karim vs. Mst. Bibi Sakina, AIR 1964 SC 1254 . In the first place this case is not directly on the point under consideration before me. In this case it was laid down that if benami purchaser in Court auction fails to establish his title on the basis of sale certificate he can sue for possession on the basis of his long possession which has conferred him title under the Limitation Act. Apex Court further observed that such alternate case must be pleaded and proved. ( 14 ) APEX Court in this case further observed that adverse possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and extent and a plea is required at least to show when possession becomes adverse so that the starting point of limitation against the party affected can be found. Relying upon this portion of the verdict of the Apex Court, learned counsel for the Appellant urged that continuity of possession should have been established and mere assertion that defendants No. 1 and 2 remained in possession since 1943, is not enough. He further contended that the possession should be hostile in nature to the title of the real owner and this condition is also not established in the instant case. After going through the judgments of the two Courts below and the material on record I find it difficult to accept this contention. It has been clear case of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that they are in possession of the disputed property over which encroachment is alleged by them since before 1943. After going through the judgments of the two Courts below and the material on record I find it difficult to accept this contention. It has been clear case of the defendants Nos. 1 and 2 that they are in possession of the disputed property over which encroachment is alleged by them since before 1943. It was in the year 1943 that the plaintiff and defendant no. 5 purchased the property under registered sale deed. Thus, it is not a case where continuity of possession is not alleged or is not proved. Even the plaintiff-appellant has come out with the case that he came to know of the alleged encroachment only in the year 1974 when he got two maps prepared by surveyors. This itself shows that preparation of maps by surveyor was nothing but an attempt to create evidence in support of the case of the appellant. It is difficult to believe that a person purchasing property in 1943 could not have noticed that the defendant made encroachment over the same or that they were asserting possession over the same. The evidence of the defendant No. 1 is not a bald statement of claim of possession. Definite overt act to constitute possession has been alleged by the defendant No. 1 and has been proved as well. The said overt act is that the defendant No. 1 constructed a hut over the land in suit and resided therein along with his family members. On the remaining portion he tethered his cattle and used the same for other connected purposes. Subsequently a house was also constructed by defendant No. I over the said portion. It was therefore not secret act of possession over the open land. if the appellant is sure that he purchased entire land in the year 1943 there was no reason for him not to raise objection to the defendant No. 1 to remove encroachment. If there was no obstruction to the alleged possession claimed by the defendant No. 1 it could safely be said that the defendant No. 1 succeeded in establishing his continuous possession since before 1943 till date of the institution of the suit and also thereafter. The element of continuity of possession is therefore fully established in the instant case in favour of the defendant No. 1. The element of continuity of possession is therefore fully established in the instant case in favour of the defendant No. 1. The possession of defendant No. 1 was therefore open and without interruption and any body could see that the defendant No. 1 constructed hut, tethered cattle and used the land in dispute far other purpose. The possession was open and real owner did not object to such possession hence it can be said that it was uninterrupted possession of the defendant No. 1. ( 15 ) SO far as the element of hostility is concerned right from the beginning defendant no. 1 has said in the written statement that plaintiff-appellant is not the owner of the land and that he is owner by adverse possession. Prior to that no dispute arose between the parties in respect of the disputed land. Hence, the defendant No. 1 had no occasion to shout that he was claiming possession adverse to the possession of the plaintiff-appellant. The lower Appellate Court has discussed the entire oral and documentary evidence and also took into consideration the circumstances to show that the claim of the defendant No. 1 was hostile and plea of adverse possession was established. The lower Appellate Court rightly took into consideration the existence of boundary mark and also boundary pillars over the land in dispute demarcating the property of the parties. The existence of defendants construction since before 1943 was also rightly taken into consideration by the two Courts below. The admission of the plaintiffs witness going against the case of the plaintiff-appellant was also rightly considered by the lower Appellate Court. Construction of pali on the northern side of the encroached portion of land also indicates that the plaintiffs property was extending only upto pali (dividing line ). ( 16 ) IN view of the above discussions it is clear that even if the plaintiff purchased the property in dispute in the year 1943 the defendants No. 1 and 2 have perfected their title over the same being in adverse possession since before 1943 till date of the suit. The suit was filed in the year 1975. This period certainly exceeded 12 years and findings recorded by the two Courts below on the point requires no interference. Questions No. 1 and 2 are answered in affirmative. The suit was filed in the year 1975. This period certainly exceeded 12 years and findings recorded by the two Courts below on the point requires no interference. Questions No. 1 and 2 are answered in affirmative. ( 17 ) REGARDING question No. 4, I have already held above that the defendants No. 1 and 2 have established that their claim for possession over the land in suit was hostile to the title of the present appellant. Consequently findings on adverse possession require no interference and this question is answered accordingly. ( 18 ) SO far as the claim over the mango tree is concerned it was rightly refused by the two Courts below. The lower Appellate Court found that the disputed mango tree is situated in between southern boundary of the plaintiffs filed and northern boundary of the field of defendant No. 1 bearing survey No. 201/3. The plaintiff in support of his claim of title to the mango tree relied upon exhibit 37/2. But this document was found to be in respect of survey No. 162. In the sale deed Exhibit 37/1 under which the plaintiff purchased property from Bhailalbhai Dadabhai there was a mention of three mango tree but only one tree is found at the spot. It could not be connected from Exhibit 37/1 that the disputed mango tree was purchased by the plaintiff and his brother defendant No. 5. As such this claim of the plaintiff was also rightly rejected by the two Courts below. ( 19 ) IN the result, I find that the judgment of the two Courts below require no interference. There is no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. .