it appears that the trial court has dealt it elaborately. Admittedly, Exhibit G is the Amin’s report. So far this report or the report of the Pleader Commissioner are concerned, those speak about the factual position of the suit land and will not decide the title of the parties. Here, as stated above, it is admitted fact that the defendant has not purchased the suit land. In other words, the boundary described in the sale deed is not the boundary of the suit land. He is not denying the fact that the boundary mentioned is not the boundary of Schedule I land. In my opinion, therefore, these documents, Exhibit G and H are not vital document and not affect the rights of the parties. The only point is whether the defendantappellant has purchased the suit land or not. The admitted position is that he has not purchased the same. Then under what capacity, he is in possession of the property. According to the plaintiff, he has trespassed over it and according to the defendant, he purchased the said land but the title deed speaks otherwise. In such circumstances, what is the role of Exhibit G and H, I do not understand. The other aspect of the matter is that Exhibit G is Anchal Amin’s report in another proceeding and in the present case, the Amin has not been examined as witness. Therefore, the evidence cannot be read against the plaintiff. Moreover, whether the plaintiff has title over the suit land or not, cannot be decided by the report of Anchal Amin or Pleader Commissioner
