Judgment : Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. The counsel for the respondents remains absent. The matter was adjourned in the expectation that the learned counsel would appear. But since the counsel for the respondents remains absent, the matter is disposed of finally. It was the case of the plaintiff that the suit property namely, property bearing Khata no.91 of Srinivagilu village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, measuring east to west on the northern side 47 feet and north to south on the eastern side 39 feet and on western side 32 feet, totally measuring about 1650 square feet, with a shed thereon measuring 10'x 10' was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1995 and he was in possession of the same and the property taxes have been paid in respect of the same to the competent authority. The defendants, it transpires, had set up a claim over the suit property and tried to interfere with the same and sought to extract money from the plaintiff and threatened that they would otherwise demolish the compound wall and take over the property. It was the plaintiff's further allegation that the defendants had even managed to create some false records and had filed a suit in O.S.No.10460/1996 against one Mathew Yahannan and in that suit, they had obtained an order of temporary injunction in respect of the property bearing survey No.18/4 and Khata No.4. The plaintiff claims that his property was assigned site no.3 and khata no.28 and house no.3/3. The plaintiff had asserted that the property claimed by the defendants and the property claimed by the plaintiff were not the same and that there was no connection between the property claimed by the defendants in their suit in O.S.No.10460/1990 and in this regard since the defendants were trying to interfere with the property on the basis of the orders passed in the said suit, the plaintiff had requested his son-in-law to report to the Police and also to take further steps to prevent interference by the defendants since the plaintiff was aged and was ailing. It is in that background that the suit came to be filed through the son-in-law of the plaintiff. It is in that background that the suit came to be filed through the son-in-law of the plaintiff. The defendants filed their written statement asserting that the plaintiff was not the owner of the suit property and that there was no property identified as site no.3 and they claimed that the property described as Survey No.18/4 and Khata No.4, was purchased under a registered document executed by one Chikkamuniyappa for a sum of Rs.90,000/-. The defendants purportedly claim under a registered deed. But, however, would also assert that they had obtained power of attorney, affidavit and the sale agreement from one Chikkamuniyappa, under whom they were seeking possession of the suit property and countered that the plaintiff was one who had interfered with their possession. It was also contended that the suit property was not converted for nonagricultural purpose and therefore, the documents sought to be relied upon by the plaintiff were illegal and could not claim right in the same. The court below framed the following issues: - "1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that he is in lawful possession of the suit property on the date of filing the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff has proved that the defendants have interfered over his possession? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get permanent injunction? 4. What Order or Decree? " The court below has answered the same in the negative. The court below thereafter has proceeded to address the relevant documents of the parties and has opined that since the plaintiff did not step into the witness box and tender evidence through his son-in-law, the plaint averments were not established and has summarily dismissed the suit. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that apart from the opinion formed by the court below that the suit was not filed by a competent person and that he was not competent to tender evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, the court below has also expressed that the plaintiff should have sought for appointment of a Court Commissioner, to have the property surveyed in view of there being a dispute about the identity and location and this however, was without reference to any acceptable documents. Insofar as the assertion that the plaintiff was not enabled to file the suit through a power of attorney holder and the power of attorney holder was not competent to tender evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, is an incorrect pronouncement on the question of law and seeks to place reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Man Kaur vs, Hartar Singh Sangha, 2010(10) SCC 512 and would contend that the court below was not justified in holding that the power of attorney holder of the appellant was not competent to tender evidence and cannot be sustained. In that, the appellant, on the date of the evidence, was aged 82 and when the suit was disposed of and he is 87 as on date and he was terminally ill and as on date, he is unable to communicate or move. It is in this background, that the affairs of the plaintiff were never entrusted to the son-in-law and it is he who had complained to the appellant in the first instance of interference by the defendants and had thereafter taken steps to prevent any further interference by filing the suit. Therefore, he was competent to speak about the interference by the defendants and the cause of action. Apart from producing the documents in support of the claim to the title to the property, there was no personal involvement of the plaintiff, which only the plaintiff could speak to it, in support of the case. It was, on the other hand, mandatory for the plaintiff to prove his case through the power of attorney , as held by the apex court and therefore the court below was not justified in negating the evidence tendered by the power of attorney holder insofar as the cause of action is concerned and to prove possession. Hence, the court below negating the documents filed by the plaintiff whereas in juxtaposition, the documents filed by the defendants were nebulous and were in the nature of affidavits, power of attorney and the agreement which, could not displace the registered document of sale in respect of the suit property, which was produced before the court below and hence, he would submit that the judgment of the court below be set aside. On the face of it, the defendants had not claimed any better title to the suit property. On the face of it, the defendants had not claimed any better title to the suit property. The plaintiff having produced the registered document of title and having tendered evidence through the competent witnesses, the court below was not justified in negating the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had not entered the witness box and tendered evidence in support of his case. Further, the observation of the court below that the plaintiff was obliged to seek the appointment of a surveyor to identify and locate the property and to tender his report on the alleged encroachment was again misplaced. Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC", for brevity) provides the power to the court to appoint a Court Commissioner if it was so warranted. In the opinion of this court, it does not afford any right to a party seeking appointment of a Commissioner. Therefore, if the court was convinced that it was necessary to obtain a report of a Court Commissioner, the court could have appointed one. Hence, the opinion of the court below that the plaintiff should have taken steps in this regard is an incorrect view expressed by the court below. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The suit is decreed as prayed for.