This second appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff Behroon who went to the court u/s. 183 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act with the averment that khasra No. 140 (previous No. 291 and 321) was in his cultivatory possession" and that the respondents also had land in his neighbourhood. He stated that the respondents had occupied 3 biswas of his land unlawfully and prayed that such land as may be found in the possession of the defendants respondents after measurement may be restored to him. The defendants denied the suit but stated that the matter related to the establishment of the boundry and may, therefore, be referred to the S.D.O. The Assistant Collector who heard this case struck the following [three issues :— (1) Whether the land in khasra No. 140 (former Nos. 291 & 321) in village Surer was in the cultivatory possession of the plaintiff? (2) Whether the defendants had occupied three biswas of land situated in the west of khasra No. 140 and whether the plaintiff was entitled to its restoration ? (3) Relief Having examined the witnesses and the documents produced by both the sides, the trial court decided issue No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff but with regard to the issue No. 2 the trial court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had failed to establish trespass and was not, therefore, entitled to a decree of ejectment. Having felt aggrieved by this order the plaintiff filed an appeal before the R. A. A who rejected the appeal notwithstanding the report of the Naib-Tehsildar who had been appointed as a Commissioner and had found 18 biswansis of plaintiffs land in the occupation of the defendants. The present appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order. It is argued that the judgments of both the courts below are perverse and deserve to be set aside on this ground. The learned counsel for the appellant has, in particular, referred to the statement of P. W. 4 Basant Visharad Kanugo who had measured khasra No. 140 in the presence of the parries and found that the defendants had added 19 biswansis of land falling in khasra No. 291 to his K. No. 290. The learned counsel for the appellant has, in particular, referred to the statement of P. W. 4 Basant Visharad Kanugo who had measured khasra No. 140 in the presence of the parries and found that the defendants had added 19 biswansis of land falling in khasra No. 291 to his K. No. 290. He also drew our attention to the order sheet dated 8-4-63 which shows that the defendants had objected to the report of this commission and had sought for another commission which was accordingly appointed by that order and this commission to found that the defendants had occupied 18 biswansis of land belonging to the plaintiff. On receipt of this report vide order of the trial court dated 10-9-63, the defendants were given an opportunity to call the Commissioner in evidence. This was, however, not availed of but a fresh application was made for the appointment of another commission by the defendants. This was rejected on 25-10-63. Thereafter, arguments were heard in the case and the suit was dismissed as stated above. On the face of it the finding of the trial court is perverse. The trial court has rejected the measurement made by the Kanugo on the basis of the objections raised by the defendants that the fixed point had not been correctly taken, and further that the Kanugo had not obtained the signatures of the parties on Ex. P. 1 being the report of the commission. We are not impressed by these arguments. The report clearly states that the parties were present on the occasion. Moreover, as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in deference to the wishes of the defendants a second commission was appointed to report in the matter and his report too was adverse to the defendants. Surprisingly, this report does not find a mention in the order of the trial court, though a note was taken of this report by the appellate authority. Having taken note of this the appellate authority preceded to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the trial court had not found any land in the occupation of the defendants. He also referred to the settlement of St. 1914 and the consolidation proceedings and argued that since there was no difference in the area of the disputed fields the order of the trial court was perfectly justified. He also referred to the settlement of St. 1914 and the consolidation proceedings and argued that since there was no difference in the area of the disputed fields the order of the trial court was perfectly justified. We fail to appreciate this line of argument. So far as the question of title of the plaintiff over khasra No. 140 (old numbers 291 & 321) is concerned, the trial courts finding is in favour of the plaintiff. The question, as admitted by the defendants in the written statement is evidently of the measurement of the respective fields and the determination of the boundary. According to the measurement by two independent authorities it was found that atleast 18 biswansis of land belonging to the plaintiff were in the possession of the defendants. Evidently, this called for a decree in favour of the plaintiff and in denying the same to him, we feel, both the lower courts have fallen into legalistic quibbling which cannot be sustained from any angle. If the Assistant Collector was not satisfied with the report of the Commissioner, he should have referred the matter to the S. D. O, u/s 111 of the Land Revenue Act so that proper relief could be provided to the aggrieved party. In not doing so, we feel both the lower courts have fallen into an error. Accordingly, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and direct that Land Records Officer may proceed to decide this dispute u/s 111 of the Land Revenue Act and after ascertaining the common boundary of the fields of the contesting parties, place the party best entitled in possession of the disputed land.