- SECTION 83
- Bench: Justice V. Jagannathan
Facts:
The plaintiff in the case was the owner of a plot who filed a case against the appellant here, who allegedly encroached upon the land of the former. Therefore, relief was sought against the same for declaring the plaintiff, herein the appellant as the owner of the land with an injunction order. The trial court did not accept the case and dismissed the same on the basis of Section 83 and the report of the surveyor of the plot which was not accurate evidence for the plea of the appellant/petitioner. On appeal, the lower appeal court allowed the appeal and proved against the defendant. The appeal has been so made to this Court in light of the same.
Issues:
Whether the surveyor’s report can be questioned for accuracy unless proved?
Contentions of the Appellant:
The contention was that there was no appropriate appreciation for the evidence and the document submitted by the responded is erroneous in terms of law and facts. The report of the surveyor was contended to have various defects as it was drawn up on the behest of the plaintiff in the case. The surveyor himself was not examined to prove the accuracy of the report and this is sufficient under Section 83 for the same to be rejected. The discrepancies in the sale deed and the map made by the surveyor were brought forward as evidence for the same.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent was missing from the appeal. However the contentions made in the lower courts were that the appellant here was served with a notice and a witness. The witness of the defendant was also present during the survey, therefore there arises no suspicion in the report of the surveyor and therefore the appeal was allowed and adjudged in favour of the appellant in the lower court of appeal.
Judgment:
The Judge allowed this appeal and stated that the if any map or plan is made for the purpose of any cause, the said map or plan will have to be proved to be accurate. The onus of proving such map as accurate lies on the party who wants to rely on the said map or plan. It has to be proved that the said map or plan or survey report as in the instant case is accurate by examining the person who actually prepared it. Since there is no evidence showing it was made for public purpose, it was incumbent for the plaintiff to prove the accuracy of the report. AS the surveyor was not cross examined in this case, it is easy for fraud to have occurred owing to the fact that the plaintiff was the one upon whose behest the map was made in the first place. Taking Section 83 into consideration, the Court held that the trial court was accurate in its judgement by wanting accuracy of the survey report made.
