JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—This second appeal is concluded by finding of fact. The only contention on which this appeal was admitted was whether the demarcation report given by the Local Commissioner was not in accordance with the provisions of law and ought ,not to have been relied upon by the First Appellate Court. The substantial questions of law on which this appeal was admitted on, May 15, 1993 are : 1. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate Court is vitiated due to placing reliance upon the report Ex. DW-2/ A of the Local Commissioner. 2. Whether the report of Local Commissioner Ex. DW-2/A in the facts and circumstances is not in consonance with the provisions of law and ought not to have been made basis for deciding the appeal? 2. In order to appreciate the respective contention of the parties, the facts in brief may be noticed: 3. Land comprised in khasra number 596 and 597 measuring 0-1-25 hectares as also khasra numbers 586 and 587 measuring 0-3-27 hectares, situate in mohal Nagrota Surian, Tehsil Dehra, District Kangra, hereinafter referred to as the "suit land", is recorded in the ownership of the plaintiff/appellants. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land prior to the settlement was part of old khasra numbers 244 and 245. This land was purchased by the plaintiffs from one Janmez Singh Defendant No. 4, Chuhru, encroached upon khasra number 587 and constructed a Tapri (Temporary structure). Plaintiffs pray for a decree of possession of this land. The defendants resist the suit. Allegations are controverted. It is the case of defendants that the suit land is not part of earlier khasra number 244 and 245. The revenue record during Consolidation and Settlement was incorrectly prepared. The measurements were carried out by the settlement staff without taking into consideration the increase and decrease in the area of the defendants measuring 1 Kanals 9 marlas. It is the further case of the defendants that during consolidation, khasra numbers 586, 587, 596, 597 and 599 have wrongly been shown to have been carved from khasra numbers 244 and 245 and in fact, khasra number 587 is part of old khasra number 246. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest on this land. In the alternative, defendants plead that they are in adverse possession of this land and have become owners thereof. The plaintiffs have no right, title and interest on this land. In the alternative, defendants plead that they are in adverse possession of this land and have become owners thereof. In nutshell, the case of the plaintiffs is that the suit land comprised in khasra number 587 is part of old khasra number 244, whereas, defendants contend that the suit land is part of khasra number 246. 4. Learned trial Court found that defendants have not been able to prove that the suit land formed part of old khasra number 246 and shajra was wrongly prepared during consolidation. Learned trial Court also concluded that defendants have not been able to prove their adverse possession over the suit land and accordingly, proceeded td decree the suit. 5. Feeling dis-satisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendants filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge (1) Kangra at Dharmashala. Learned Additional District Judge vide his impugned judgment and decree dated September 21, 1992, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved, plaintiffs have filed this second appeal. 6. Learned First Appellate Court has observed and rightly so that the trial Court has sidetracked the real issue. The question in issue was whether the suit land formed part of khasra numbers 244 and 245 before the settlement which took place in the year 1977-78 and the suit could have only been decreed if the plaintiffs succeed in proving that the suit land was part of khasra numbers 244 and 245. The tried Court did not give any finding on this aspect of the case but proceeded to hold that the defendants have not been able to prove that it was part of khasra number 246 and that the consolidation proceedings were not challenged by the defendants. 7. Learned First Appellate Court found that the plaintiffs have not been successful in proving that the suit land formed part of khasra number 244 or 245 and that the demarcation report given by the Revenue Officer (Ext. DW2/A) shows that khasra number 587 on which defendants have constructed tapri, is part of khasra number 246. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help. - 9. DW2/A) shows that khasra number 587 on which defendants have constructed tapri, is part of khasra number 246. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their help. - 9. The definite case of the plaintiffs, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the suit land was part of khasra numbers 244 and 245 prior to the settlement in the year 1977-78. The plaintiffs purchased the suit land from Janmez Singh. Exhibit P2 is copy of jamabandi for the year 1971-72 perusal of which shows that khasra number 244 measures 3 kanals 9 marlas and khasra number 245 measures 5 kanals 3 marlas. Now copy of Misal Hakiat prepared during settlement in the year 1977-78 reflects that khasra number 244 and 245 were changed into khasra numbers 583, 584, 599, 586, 587, 596, 597 in all measuring 0-38-97 hectares equivalent to more than ten kanals. Thus, the area of khasra numbers 244 and 245 has been increased by 1 kanals 8 marlas. As observed by the First Appellate Court, there is no explanation for the increase in this area. 10. It is the admitted position that the area of khasra number 246 was 15 kanals 3 marlas prior to the settlement as is apparent from the Jamabandi for the year 1971-72 (Ext. DX). One-third share of khasra number 246 was purchased by defendant No. 4, another one-third by defendants No. 1 to 3 and the remaining one-third by the father of plaintiffs Khushi Ram and his brother. The remarks column in the jamabandi for the year 1971-72 (Ext. DX), immediately prior to the settlement, shows that defendant No. 4 purchased 5 kanals 1 marlas of land as denoted by khasra number 246/2. Similarly, land denoted by khasra number 246/3 measuring 5 kanals 1 marlas was purchased by the father of defendant^ No. 1 to 3 and the remaining land denoted by khasra number 246/1 measuring 5 kanals 1 marlas was purchased by father of the plaintiffs and his brother. Now during the Settlement, Khasra Numbers 246/1, 246/2 and 246/3 were given new khasra numbers. Land purchased by Chuhru Ram comprised in Khasra numbers 246/3 was allotted khasra numbers 588, 589, 590, 594, 593 and 592 measuring 0-16-56 hectares equivalent to 4 kanals 16 marlas. Now during the Settlement, Khasra Numbers 246/1, 246/2 and 246/3 were given new khasra numbers. Land purchased by Chuhru Ram comprised in Khasra numbers 246/3 was allotted khasra numbers 588, 589, 590, 594, 593 and 592 measuring 0-16-56 hectares equivalent to 4 kanals 16 marlas. Similarly, land purchased by defendants Lachhman Dass, Subhash Chand and Ram Kishan comprised in Khasra number 246/3 was given new khasra number 598 which measures 0-16-79 hectares equivalent to 4 kanals 13 marlas. Land purchased by the father of the plaintiffs comprised in khasra Number 246/1 was allotted new khasra numbers 600, 601, 602, 603, 604, 605 measuring 0-19-06 hectares equivalent to 4 kanals 19 marlas (Ext. DZ). Thus, the defendants were recorded as owners in possession of land less than what they purchased and what was in their possession immediately prior to the settlement. Learned First Appellate Court has referred to the testimony of defendant No. 4 Chuhru Ram (DW 1) who has stated that he purchased a consolidated piece of land from Lachhman etc., and the suit land is part of that land which is now given new khasra number 587 and erroneously shown to have been carved out from khasra number 544. Learned First appellate Court has also referred to the testimony of Rajinder Pal (DW 3) who sold the land to the father of the plaintiffs and defendants on behalf of Nanak Chand. It is the evidence of Rajinder Pal that the land to the parties was sold as per their possession which in turn would show that the suit land was part of khasra number 246/2 which was sold to defendnat No. 4 in the same condition in which it exists on the spot. 11. The conclusion arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court cannot be said to be unsupportable by evidence. The onus indeed was on the plaintiffs to prove that land comprised in khasra number 587 was integral part of khasra number 244. The plaintiffs have failed to prove this fact. On the other hand, there is evidence, as discussed by the learned First Appellate Court which shows that the suit land was part of khasra number 246/2. So far the demarcation report is concerned, it has been used by the learned First Appellate Court as corroborative piece of evidence negating the case of the plaintiffs and supporting the version of the defendants. Mr. So far the demarcation report is concerned, it has been used by the learned First Appellate Court as corroborative piece of evidence negating the case of the plaintiffs and supporting the version of the defendants. Mr. Ram Rattan, the Local Commissioner, was posted as Consolidation Officer in Dehra in the year 1983. It appears, on an application moved by Chuhru Ram, defendant No. 4, before the Collector Kangra in July, 1983, Mr. Ram Rattan was appointed as Local Commissioner for demarcating the land between the parties. He submitted his report copy of which is placed on record as Ext. DW2/A. He prepared tatima on the spot copies of which are Exts. DW2/B and DW2/C. Mr. Ram Rattan has been examined as DW2. It is his evidence that he carried out the demarcation on the basis of the record prepared during the settlement 1912-13 and consequent settlement of the year 1977-78. Local Commissioner found, as a matter of fact, that khasra numbers 244 and 245 are separated from khasra number 246 by permanent fence and the suit land was found beyond the fence abutting khasra number 246. The trial Court refused to place any reliance on the report of the Local Commissioner on the ground that copies of Musabi were not prepared from the original record and therefore, it cannot be said that there was proper demarcation of the land but as noticed by the learned First Appellate Court, the plaintiff while appearing as his own witness, did not dispute the demarcation report. I have gone through the demarcation report. It is an elaborate report and can be used for the purpose of corroboration of the evidence on record. Question No. 1. 12. The report of the Local Commissioner, it is well settled, is only a piece evidence in a given case. Indeed, it is not binding on the Court. It has to be read alongwith the other evidence on record. The Commissioner in this case has been examined as witness and there is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that report lacks veracity. If the plaintiff/appellants did not agree with the reports of the Commissioner, they could have led appropriate evidence to disprove its accuracy. 13. There is ample evidence on record, independent of the report Ext. The Commissioner in this case has been examined as witness and there is nothing in the cross-examination of this witness to show that report lacks veracity. If the plaintiff/appellants did not agree with the reports of the Commissioner, they could have led appropriate evidence to disprove its accuracy. 13. There is ample evidence on record, independent of the report Ext. DW2/A, oral as well as documentary, as discussed by the First Appellate Court, to show that the suit land comprised in Khasra number 587 was not part of khasra number 244 and defendants are not encrochers on this land. Therefore, the judgment of the First Appellate Court is not vitiated by placing reliance on this report for appreciating the evidence on record. Question No. 2. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the Local Commissioner was not appointed by the trial Court. He was appointed by the Collector Kangra in some other revenue proceedings. Therefore, the report of the Local Commissioner cannot be said to be in accordance with law and ought not to have been made basis for deciding the appeal by the learned First Appellate Court. 15. I have already pointed out that report of the Local Commissioner is merely a piece of evidence in a case and it does not bind the Court. The Court has the power to arrive at its own conclusion. The report Ext. DW2/A cannot be said to be vitiated or inadmissible in evidence simply because the Local Commissioner was appointed in some earlier proceedings between the same parties particularly when the Local Commissioner has been examined in the Court in respect of the report submitted by him. This report however, can only be used for the limited purpose of appreciating the evidence which the parties have led. The report indeed cannot be made the sole basis and foundation for the judgment in dis-regard to the evidence on record. In this case, as noticed earlier, the report has been used for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record and, therefore, suffers from no vice. The question is accordingly answered. 16. The report indeed cannot be made the sole basis and foundation for the judgment in dis-regard to the evidence on record. In this case, as noticed earlier, the report has been used for the purpose of appreciating the evidence on record and, therefore, suffers from no vice. The question is accordingly answered. 16. This apart, as pointed out in Kondiba Dagadu Kadam v. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and others, (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 722, in second appeal, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the finding of fact arrived at by the First Appellate Court cannot be disturbed unless conclusions drawn by the lower Court are: (a) contrary to the mandatory provisions of law; or (b) contrary to the law as pronounced by the Apex Court; or (c) based on inadmissible evidence or no evidence, 17. In the present case, the conclusion arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court cannot be said to be based upon either inadmissible evidence or no evidence as discussed in the preceding paras. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadams case supra, Their Lordships of the Apex Court in para 5 of the judgment observed thus: "It is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate Court. It is true that the lower appellate Court should not ordinarily project witnesses accepted by the trial Court in respect of credibility but even where it has rejected the witnesses accepted by the trial Court, the same is no ground for interference in second appeal when it is found that the appellate court has given satisfactory reasons for doing so. In a case where from a given set of circumstances two inferences are possible, one drawn by the lower appellate court is binding on the High Court in second appeal. Adopting any other approach is not permissible. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the first appellate Court unless it is found that the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate court were erroneous being contrary to the mandatory provisions of law applicable or its settled position on the basis of pronouncements made by the Apex Court, or was based upon inadmissible evidence or arrived at without evidence." 18. The finding of the learned First Appellate Court that suit land is not part of khasra number 244 is supported both by oral as well as documentary evidence and, therefore, this Court would not interfere under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure even if another view, after reappreciation of the evidence, is possible. CMPs No. 115/98 and 398/95. 19. Both these CMPs are not pressed by the learned Counsel for the respondents. The same are dismissed. 20. In result, appeal fails and is dismissed with costs throughout. Appeal dismissed.