JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - This appeal arises out of the order dated 13.5.88 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur, in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1986, reversing the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1986 and 4.9.1986 respectively passed by the Munsif, Rairangpur, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1984. 2. The brief facts, according to the appellant, is that the appellant as the plaintiff before the trial court filed a suit for declaration of his title, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction against the respondent No. 1 (defendant No. 1 in the Trial Court). The disputed land bearing Plot No. 484 under Khata No. 50/39 corresponding to Hal Khata No. 66/12 of village Jhadgaon belongs to the appellant and respondent No. 2, The said plot was allotted to Ambika charan Misra, who was the original appellant and was subsequently substituted by his legal heirs, and his brother late Trailokya Nath Misra, the father of respondent No. 2 (defendant No. 2 in the Trial Court), in the final decree proceeding by the learned Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur in a suit for partition, i.e., T.S. No. 40 of 1974/T.S. No. 10 of 1975. 3. According to the appellant, partition by metes and bounds has not been effected between Ambika and the legal heirs of his brother, but by mutual agreement, Ambika was possessing the northern portion and defendant No. 2 was possessing the southern portion of the disputed land. Ambika had also filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds against defendant No. 2, which has been decreed preliminarily and Ambika has been allotted 1/2 share in plot No. 484 according to his possession, which he is using as thrashing floor. A portion of the land of defendant No. 1 in plot No. 484 adjoins the northern portion of plot No. 484. On 11.03.1984, defendant No. 1 encroached upon some portion of the Suiit land along with some hired labourer and dug earth to raise construction of a house, to which the appellant protested and requested them not to do so. As defendant No. 1 and his son did not pay any heed to the request of the appellant, he was compelled to file the suit. 4. As defendant No. 1 and his son did not pay any heed to the request of the appellant, he was compelled to file the suit. 4. Respondent No. 2 filed written statement admitting the ownership of the plaintiff-appellant over the disputed land, but took the stand that he was possessing the particular portion of the suit land for more than fifty years and has acquired his title by way of adverse possession. 5. The learned Munsif deputed a Civil Court Commissioner to make a local enquiry over the disputed land in order to ascertain whether defendant No. 1-respondent No. 1 had encroached any portion of the suit land. Considering the report of the commissioner as well as the other evidence on record, he came to the conclusion that the plaintiff, i.e., Ambika, was in possession of the northern portion of the suit land and defendant No. 2, the southern portion. Defendant No. 1 had encroached upon the suit land by 36 Sq. links, or 16 Sq. feet. The plea of adverse possession by defendant No. 1 was also rejected. Accordingly, the Trial Court directed the respondent No. 1 to deliver possession of the encroached portion of the suit land to the plaintiff Ambika and restrained the said defendant permanently from creating any disturbance in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. 6. Defendant No. 2 did not challenge the above order. However, defendant No. 1 impugned the same before the learned Subordinate Judge, Rairangpur, in Title Appeal No. 3 of 1986. After hearing the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh disposal after deputing a Civil Court Commissioner afresh. The appellant has, in this appeal, challenged the aforesaid order of the lower appellate court. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the lower appellate court has, in fact, misinterpreted the fact by saying that the trial court committed serious mistake by declaring the title of the plaintiff, when the suit property has not been partitioned by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and his co-sharer and the partition suit is pending. According to him, even though there was no partition of the property by metes and bounds, the plaintiff-appellant can resist a trespasser from encroaching upon the joint family property. According to him, even though there was no partition of the property by metes and bounds, the plaintiff-appellant can resist a trespasser from encroaching upon the joint family property. The declaration made by the trial court is not only for the plaintiff, but it can safely be presumed to be a declaration in favour of the joint family. It is further argued that as no objection had been raised before the trial court regarding the report of the Civil Court Commissioner, his objection on that score should not have been entertained by the lower appellate court. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, when the plea of adverse possession has been negatived, the appeal should have been dismissed in limine on that score only. 8. Now, the question arises is whether the lower appellate court is correct in holding that the Munsif committed an error in declaring the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit land even though the same is a part of the joint family property. Further, when the learned Subordinate Judge was correct in coming to the conclusion that the report of the Civil Court Commissioner is ambiguous land from that exact location of the disputed land and the extent of the alleged encroached portion is not ascertainable, for which the trial court should not have accepted the said report. 9. So far as the first question is concerned, it is admitted that the property is joint family property, which was the case of the plaintiff Ambika, the other co-sharer being defendant No. 2 Gyanendra Misra, who is none else than the son of the plaintiff's brother. Therefore, any decision in the suit shall be applicable to all the co-sharers of the property. For the above reason, there is nothing wrong in the finding of the Trial Court on this score. 10. So far as the finding of the lower appellate court regarding the report of the Civil Court Commissioner is concerned, it is not out of place to mention here that the object of deputing a commissioner is not to collect evidence but to obtain evidence, which, from the peculiar nature, can only be had on the spot. Such local inspection by the commissioner assists the court and the report of the commissioner is used for the limited purpose of appreciating the evidence which the court records in course of the trial. Such local inspection by the commissioner assists the court and the report of the commissioner is used for the limited purpose of appreciating the evidence which the court records in course of the trial. The report of the commissioner is only one piece of evidence amongst the other evidence to be led by the parties for determination of the issues involved. In the instant case, the learned Munsif has not come to his conclusion by solely relying on the report of the commissioner but by evaluating the other evidence led before him as well. He has also recorded in his judgment that it was open for the parties to make application for taking out a fresh commissioner for the same purpose in case the report was not acceptable. So, respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 at liberty to file objection to the said report, which he did not prefer to do. This not having been done, it was not open for him to challenge the report before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court, without taking all these aspects into consideration, has come to an abrupt conclusion that the report is ambiguous, which is not correct. 11. The plea of adverse possession was also taken by respondent No. 1 while admitting the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his co-sharers are the owner of the suit property. The trial court, after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was in possession of the land in plot No. 484 in the northern side. It further came to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 failed to discharge the burden of providing that he has perfected his right over the suit land by way of adverse possession for more than the statutory period. The lower appellate court, while deciding the appeal, has not, in any manner, disturbed the finding of the Trial Court as regards the claim of defendant No. 1 for adverse possession over the suit property. The plea of adverse possession was the main plea before the Trial court, as it appears from the written statement filed by defendant No. 1, which was negatived. Since the lower appellate court has not disturbed that finding. There was nothing before it to hover around different other grounds taken before it and set aside the order and decree of the Trial Court. Since the lower appellate court has not disturbed that finding. There was nothing before it to hover around different other grounds taken before it and set aside the order and decree of the Trial Court. As regards maintainability of the suit, the Trial Court was absolutely correct in holding that the suit by one of the co-sharers is maintainable. 12. For the foregoing discussions, I have no hesitation to set aside the order of the lower appellate court and confirm the order and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. The L.C.R. be sent back. Final Result : Allowed