genuineness of such map in view of section 83 of the Evidence Act if map is drawn by competent authority. (See: Ram Kishore Sen and ors. vs. Union of India and Ors reported in AIR 1966 SC 644) When such vital document is duly produced, proved and established, necessary detailed decree can be followed if there is any encroachment on the suit property. As held by this Court in Vijay Shende's case (supra), in such cases, fact of encroachment may be proved partly by oral evidence although the extent of encroachment cannot be proved in absence of public records without following due procedure emerging from section 36 and section 60 of the Evidence Act. In view of this recent judicial precedent referred to above, in the larger interest of justice, when it appears that the trial Court as well as 1st Appellate Court failed to follow proper procedure in this regard to ascertain the boundaries of the suit property. I must allow this appeal by setting aside impugned judgments and orders with direction to the trial Court concerned to consider appointment of Court Commissioner, who shall be competent official from the Office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records and District Inspector of Land Records, as the case may be. The Court Commissioner, if required, shall secure copies of necessary public record relating to Gat/Survey number, subject- matter of dispute for to settle boundaries of the suit property by carrying out measurement after due notice to the parties to the suit and also issuing notice to adjacent owners/possessors to the suit property. He shall submit his written report to the trial Court together with detailed map. Learned trial Court after considering such written report may allow the parties to lead additional evidence if it deems it fit and shall pass order according to law. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 28th April, 2014. It is desirable that the trial Judge shall endeavour to get an agreed map on record
