In an earlier title suit, namely, Title Suit No. 152 of 1962 there was an compromise between the defendant No. 1 and the plaintiff-respondent and according to the said compromise the southern half of the land covered by old patta No. 15/623 vested with the plaintiff while the northern half on the defendant-respondent No. 1. Accor­ding to the plaintiff the area of the land was 4-Bs, 2-Ks, 5-Ls equivalent to 1.43 acres approximately- But this area is not admitted by the defendant No. 1. In the last survey this old patta was recorded as new patta No. 15/38 and covered by C. S. Plot No. 2007 and the area of land was shown as 1.36 acres. Plaintiff-respondent has alleged that reduction of area of-12 acres was due to encroachment of land by the defendant-appellants. After the above compromise decree, the land was demarcated in two half's by making a louri i. e. mud wall of 1” or 1 ½” height. It is alleged that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff-respondent, defendant •appellant No. 1 started encroachment on the southern half of the plaintiff's land in spite of repeated objections and thereafter the defendant-appellants constructed a dwelling house wherein defendant-appellant No. 2 is now residing with his family. Hence, the suit. A joint written statement was filed. Though the compromise decree was not disputed, but it is alleged that it was never executed. According to the defendants-appellants the plaintiff respondent was never in possession of any portion of the suit land though defendants are in continuous possession. 2. On the pleadings the following issues were . framed : "1. Has the plaintiff right and title over the land ? 1 A.. What was the area of land covered by old patta 15/673 ? 1B. Whether the plaintiff was to get half of the said land according to the compromise decree dated 20. 11. 63 in T.S. No. 152 of 1962 ? Or Whether the defendant 1 was to get 11/2 Lousal of the said land according to the said compromise decree ? 1C. Whether the area of the said land was wrongly recorded in new patta No. 15/38 by reducing an area of 12 acres due to the encroachment made by the defendants ? 2. Has defendant No. 2 encroached on the suit land and resided therein by constructing of houses without any right whatsoever ? 3. 1C. Whether the area of the said land was wrongly recorded in new patta No. 15/38 by reducing an area of 12 acres due to the encroachment made by the defendants ? 2. Has defendant No. 2 encroached on the suit land and resided therein by constructing of houses without any right whatsoever ? 3. Whether the plaintiff has been in possession of the suit land ? 4. Is the suit barred by Limitation ? 5. Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs as claimed ? 6. Whether the suit suffers from defect of parties ?• 3. The first contention of Mr. T. Bhubon Smgh learned counsel for the appellants is that the plaintiff amended the plaint without any orders of the learned trial Court and the recast plaint was not in accordance with any order of the learned trial Court. He has further alleged that in the amended plaint the area of land was not given in measurement of bighas etc. 1 have perused the original record and I find that the question of amendment of the plaint was considered in a" separate Case No. 200/72 Vide order in the "main suit passed on 2.9. 19 72. Amendment was allowed with cost vide order dated 9.11. 1972 and the recast plaint was filed on 21.11.1972 and on the said amendment plaint the learned trial Court has put his signature with the seal. A copy of toe' amended plaint was also furnished to the defendants.' Thereafter oh 25.11:72 additional issues were framed and by the order dated 2. 11. 1972 examination of further witnesses was ordered and the witnesses were examined accordingly. I have perused the amended plaint and 1 find that in para 1 of the plaint the area of the land has been given as 4-Bs, 2Ks, 5-Ls (1.48 acres). So, the contention of Mr. T. Bhubon Singh has no force, 4. Mr. Bhubon Singh has urged that the compromise, decree was not executed, and as required under the provisions of C. P. C. the decree was. not sent to4he Collector, Exhibit-A/1 is the compromise decree with the conditions of compromise. On perusal of the said compromise decree I do not find that there was any agreement for partition of suit. Mr. Bhubon Singh has urged that the compromise, decree was not executed, and as required under the provisions of C. P. C. the decree was. not sent to4he Collector, Exhibit-A/1 is the compromise decree with the conditions of compromise. On perusal of the said compromise decree I do not find that there was any agreement for partition of suit. The question of execution and sending the decree to the Collector for partition will arise only if there ' has to be a perfect partition between the parties. On the other hand, there is enough evidence on record to show that the revenue staff went to the suit land and divided into two parts and thereafter parties raised the mud wall. This fact is supported by all the witnesses for the defendants. I therefore, do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Mr. Bhubon Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the findings of the learned trial Court are without proper plea­dings and necessary issues. According to the learned counsel, there ought to have been a issue regarding actual area alleged to have been encroached by the defendants. In support, learned counsel has drawn my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohammad Mustafa vs. Sri Abu Bakor, AIR 1971 S C 316, wherein it was held that without proper pleadings and necessary issues the same cannot bind any of the parties to the suit. In issue No. 2 the specific point for consideration was "Whether defendant No. 2 encroached the suit land and resided therein by constructing house without right whatsoever." The suit was for eviction of the defendants on the ground of encroachment which was denied by the defendants. Evidence was also adduced by both the parties on the point of encroachment. In schedule to the plaint, the area of the encroachment and the boundaries of the said encroachment were given. .So, the contention of Mr. Bhubon Siagn that there was no proper pleading is not tenable. It is true, that the learned trial Court did not frame any issue mentioning the exact area of encroachment, but in my opinion, this will not vitiate -the trial in any way. So the ratio laid down in Mohammad Mustafa (supra) is not applicable in the case in hand. In N. Kameswa-ramma vs. S. Subha Rao. It is true, that the learned trial Court did not frame any issue mentioning the exact area of encroachment, but in my opinion, this will not vitiate -the trial in any way. So the ratio laid down in Mohammad Mustafa (supra) is not applicable in the case in hand. In N. Kameswa-ramma vs. S. Subha Rao. A I R 1963 S C 884 and Kunju Kesavan vs. M. M. Phillip and others A I R 1964 S C 164, the Apex Court laid down when the parties went to trial fully knowing .the rival case and led all the evidence not only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side, it cannot be said that absence of an issue was fatal to the case, or that there was mis­trial which vitiates proceedings. In view of the above ratio laid down, I am of the opinion that the present proceeding was legal and valid and the "findings of the learned trial Court cannot be rejected. 6. The learned trial Court appointed a Commissioner for local investigation and the report was accepted. The learned trial Court has, placed reliance on the said report. Mr. Bhubon Sirigh has sub­mitted that report of the Commissioner cannot be accepted on the two grounds, namely, defendants were not given a chance to file objection to the said report and that the Commissioner was not examined as a witness. I have perused the records of the learned trial Court and I find that defendants were absent when the report was -submitted and also on subsequent dates, namely, 13. 2. 73 when the report was accepted. However, on 16. 2. 73 the defendants prayed for time to file objection which was rejected. In view of the above factual position, I am of the opinion that defendants cannot take this plea at this stage. 7. Order 26 rules 9 and 10 C. P. C. provide for Commission for local investigation. Sub-rule (I) of Rule 10, inter alia, provides that the report of the Commissioner and evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. This sub-rule however, enables the Court or any of the parties to this suit, with the permission of the Court to examine the Commissioner per­sonally. Thus the Legislative mandate is clear and unambiguous. This sub-rule however, enables the Court or any of the parties to this suit, with the permission of the Court to examine the Commissioner per­sonally. Thus the Legislative mandate is clear and unambiguous. The report of the Commissioner shall form part of the record without the Commissioner coming into the witness box; Court or with the permission of the Court any party may however summon the Comm­issioner as witness. 8. In V. Appayyamma vs. L. Sahu, AIR 1973, A P 168. it was held that report of the Commissioner is a part of the record and can be considered as evidence irrespective of the fact whether Commissioner is examined as witness or not. The same view was expressed by Allahabad High .Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Smt. Ramsri, AIR 1976 All. 121 and by Delhi High Court in Harbhajan Singh vs. Smt. Shakuntala Devi bharma, A 1R 1976p Delhi 175. I am in respectfully agreement with the above view expressed in view of the clear provisions contained in C. P. C. and accordingly hold that the report of the Commissioner along with evidence taken by him s tall form part of the record of the case and can be read as evidence without Commissioner being examined. . 9. Mr. Bhubon Singh further submits that the Court has dis­cretion to take or not to take into consideration the report of the Commissioner and in support learned counsel has placed reliance in Haji Kutubiddin vs. Allah Banda, AIR 1973 Allahabad 235 and Mohiram vs. Bansi vs. AIR 1957 H P 9 there can not be any dispute on this point. The report of the Commissioner is only an opinion and. Court may accept the report or reject the same. But in c se of rejection, it is necessary to state reason. Mr. Bhubon Singh has also urged that the defendant has got a right to show to the Court that report of the Commissioner is incorrect and is not entitled credence and in support reliance has been placed in Re P. Moosa Kutty, AIR 1953 Madras 717 oh this point also there cannot be an quarrel. 10. I have perused the report of the Commissioner and I find that the Commissioner gave the report after making necessary verification of the suit land with revenue records and help of the revenue staffs. 10. I have perused the report of the Commissioner and I find that the Commissioner gave the report after making necessary verification of the suit land with revenue records and help of the revenue staffs. The Commissioner also examined both the parties and his inspection was conducted in presence of the parties. While arriving at the actual area of land, the Commissioner examined the old revenue records, [n my opinion report of the Commissioner cannot be faulted and as such it was rightly accepted by the learned trial Court. I am not at all convinced by the arguments advanced by the learned counsel in support of hi? contention that the report should be rejected. 11. It has been contended that due to possession of the suit land by the defendants there title can be presumed. I am unable to accept the contention as the compromise decree conferred title on the plaintiff -respondent. In Nair Service Society Ltd. vs. K.C. Alexander, AIR 1968 SC 1165 it was held that presumption of title from possession can arise only where facts disclose no title to any party. 12. Mr. Bhubon Singh has also urged that in a suit for ejectment plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and this can be done by adducing sufficient evidence. In support reliance has been placed in M M. B. Chatholicos vs. MP. Athanmsis AIR 1954 SC 526 and M.M.B. Chatholicos vs. T. Paulo Avira AIR 1959 SC 31 . In the case in hand as stated earlier plaintiff has proved his title on the strength of the compromise, decree between the parties. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the written statement and also evidence adduced by the defendants to show that though learned counsel for the appellants has disputed the original area of the suit land, the defendants have admitted the area in the said written statement and also by the witnesses examined on behalf of the defendants. I find considerable force in the submission. 13. I have perused the evidence on record, the report of the Comm­issioner along with the sketch map and impugned judgment and I find that the plaintiff has proved the title over the suit land and also encroachment of a portion of the said land by the defendant-respon­dents. I find considerable force in the submission. 13. I have perused the evidence on record, the report of the Comm­issioner along with the sketch map and impugned judgment and I find that the plaintiff has proved the title over the suit land and also encroachment of a portion of the said land by the defendant-respon­dents. I hold that v the learned trial Court rightly decreed the suit and as such the present appeal has no merit. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.