Richard Garth, C.J.
1. I am of opinion that the chitta of 1844, Which has been treated by the Subordinate Judge as no evidence against the present defendant, was not evidence, and that he was perfectly right in the view which he took.
2. As I understand, this was a chitta prepared by the Deputy Collector, with a view to resumption proceedings being taken, and the way in which that chitta was sought to be used in this case by the plaintiff, was that in that chitta the 1 bigha and 19 cottas of land in suit which has been found by the Subordinate Judge to be lakeraj, was not entered as lakeraj, but as rent-paying land.
3. I think that having regard to the object of the chitta, and 'to the way in which it was prepared, it cannot be made evidence under Section 83 of the Evidence Act.
4. The maps and plans, which are mentioned in that section, are, as it seems to me, maps and plans made by the Government for public, purposes; I quite agree with the learned Judges, who decided the case of Junmajoy Mullick v. Dwarkanath Mytee I.L.R. 5 Cal. 287 that a map or plan made by the Government for private purposes, or when the Government is acting otherwise than in a public capacity, is clearly not evidence.
5. Our attention has been directed to certain cases by the learned pleader for the appellant, in which Mr. Justice Jackson and some other learned Judges appear to have considered that jamabandi papers and maps prepared by Government with reference to lands, which they were holding in their khas possession as proprietors, were evidence under this section of the Act.
6. But I confess I cannot accede to that view; and if it, should become necessary, I would refer the question, whether, such documents are admissible, to a Full Bench.
7. I think it would be extremely dangerous to admit evidence of this kind under the guise of public documents. Such papers are merely prepared by the Government as landlords for the purposes of their estate, and they appear to me to be no more evidence against the tenants of that estate than similar documents would be, prepared by any other landlord.
8. I consider the chitta in this case to be nothing more than a document prepared for the information and guidance of the Collector; and that it is not evidence against private persons for the purpose of proving that the land described in it was or was not of a particular character or tenure. If the resumption proceedings had been put in, and it had been shown that the defendant's ancestors claimed the land as lakeraj and were defeated, I quite agree that the chitta, coupled with the resumption proceedings, would have been admissible to prove that the land was not rent-free.
9. But I think that the chitta per se is not evidence in this suit; and that the Subordinate Judge was right in so dealing with it.
10. The appeal will be dismissed with costs.
11. I concur in dismissing the appeal. I think that the chitta, standing by itself, furnishes no proof that the particular land, which is the subject of this suit, was resumed by Government. If the plaintiff wished to prove the resumption of these lands, he ought to have filed the resumption proceeding itself.