1. This appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of possession on declaration of the plaintiffs' title to 9 annas odd share of certain land. Two schedules of land were set out in the plaint. The plaintiffs have obtained a decree in respect of the land of Sch. No. 2. The land in Sch. No. 2 consisted of two Cadastral Survey Dags Nos. 6460 and 6449. The decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing the plaintiffs' claim as regards Dag. No. 6460 is not now attacked.
2. The only point urged, and we think that it is a good point, is that the lower appellate Court in deciding the question of limitation with respect to Cadastral Survey Dag. No. 6449 has taken into consideration certain documents which are not admissible in evidence. These documents are Exs. E, F, G. and they relate to land on the boundaries of the land in suit and were used for the purpose of showing that the defendants and their predecessors were in possession of the disputed land. At one time there was some conflict of decisions in this Court as to the admissibility of similar documents. The later cases are all in one way. We may refer to the cases of Pramatha Nath Choudhury v. Krishna Chandra Bhattacharjee : AIR1924Cal1067 and Suraj Kumar Acharji v. Amed Ali A.I.R. 1922. Cal. 251. Agreeing with these decisions we hold that these documents were not admissible in evidence.
3. We accordingly set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court in respect of the Cadastral Survey Plot No. 6449 and also in respect of costs and direct that it do re-hear the appeal in respect of the said plot and do pass an order according to law after excluding from consideration the documentary evidence of the kobalas Exs. E, F, and G.
3. Costs will abide the result.