JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. Heard. This appeal has been admitted on following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first Appellate Court was justified in ignoring the Commissioner's report without recording the proper reasons? (B) Whether under the facts and in the circumstances of the case the first Appellate Court was justified in holding that the earlier suit is for the same land?" 2. One Gulaban Bi filed Civil suit No. 52-A/1962 in the Court of Civil Judge Class-II, Khairagarh against Kale Khan, her tenant for eviction and arrears of land. The suit was eventually decreed in favour of Gulaban Bi. Learned Trial Court granted a decree of possession of the suit house as per the man attached with the plaint except portion 'A', 'B' 'C', 'D'. A decree of arrears of land of Rs. 7000/- was also granted in favour of Gulaban Bi against Kale Khan. Gulaban Bi filed an execution case and in execution of decree, possession of the house and land of the area as indicated in the area specified in decree was handed over to Gulaban Bi. 3. The appellant plaintiff (deceased-San-wal Ram) filed present Suit No. 59-A/1967 in the Court of Civil Judge Class- II. Khairagarh against Gulaban Bi, Ranijan Ali, Sattar and Saffir Khan for possession and compensation on the pleading inter alia, that the plaintiffs had purchased respective land vide sale deeds Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2 and were in possession of land as described in two sale deeds. They were enjoying peaceful possession of the land. Their cause of action to file suit arose when in execution of decree passed in favour of Gulaban Bi, the land belonging to appellant was handed over to Gulaban Bi which land is distinct and separate from the land in dispute in litigation between Gulaban Bi and Kale Khan in Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962. On that basis, the plaintiff-appellants claimed possession of their land and also claimed compensation. 4. Vide, judgment decree dated 31.7.1973, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the appellant preferred a Civil Appeal No. 57-A/1973 which was allowed vide, judgment and decree dated 16.11.1973 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon. On that basis, the plaintiff-appellants claimed possession of their land and also claimed compensation. 4. Vide, judgment decree dated 31.7.1973, learned Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the appellant preferred a Civil Appeal No. 57-A/1973 which was allowed vide, judgment and decree dated 16.11.1973 passed by Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon. Learned District Judge held that rejection of application for amendment was illegal and therefore, plaintiff was permitted to amend plaint ' reserving consequential right of amendment by the defendant, framing of issue and decision thereon, upon collection of evidence in accordance with law. Against the said decree and judgment, a Civil Revision No. 151/77 was preferred in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, which was partly allowed vide order dated 11.4.1979. The order of remand by the lower Appellate Court for afresh decision by the Trial Court was set aside and instead, direction was given that the lower Appellate Court shall give an opportunity to the defendant to amend their written statement consequential to the amendment made by the plaintiffs and thereafter frame an issue if necessary and if evidence is necessary on that issue, it shall refer that issue only for trial to the Trial Court in accordance with provision contained under Order 41, Rule 25 , C.P.C. and after the finding is received, decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law. 5. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the lower Appellate Court framed additional issue and directed the Trial Court to collect evidence and write finding on the issue. Thereupon, learned Trial Court submitted its finding on the evidence collected on newly framed issue vide order dated 31.7.1981. 6. In the meanwhile, appellant moved an application under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C., before the learned lower Appellate Court to appoint Commissioner for making local investigation and submit a report in the Court. This claim was considered by the learned lower Appellate Court and an order was passed on 30th July, 1992 directing local investigation to be made and submission of report by the Commissioner appointed by the Court. On 30th November, 1992, Revenue Inspector submitted the report as directed by the Court. None of the parties submitted any affidavit to the report of the Commissioner so obtained by the Court. On 30th November, 1992, Revenue Inspector submitted the report as directed by the Court. None of the parties submitted any affidavit to the report of the Commissioner so obtained by the Court. Thereafter, impugned judgment and decree came to be passed whereby the learned lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal giving rise to this second appeal and consideration on the formulated questions of law. 7. Contention of learned Counsel for the appellant is that there was no dispute of title as between the appellant and Gulaban Bi. The description of land in the suit No. 52-A/62 filed by Gulaban Bi clearly shows that the land in dispute in that case was situated in Kh. No. 82/2 of P.H. No. 12 of Village - Gandai whereas in the case of the appellant land does not bear the description of that particular Kh. No. 82/2. There is no litigation between two parties. The appellants did not seek declaration of any title in their favour but they filed suit only for possession on the ground that while executing decree passed in Civil Suit No. 52-A/62 in favour of Gulaban Bi, in respect of handing over possession of the land in dispute in that case to Gulaban Bi by dispossessing Kale Khan, the appellants have been wrongly dispossessed from the land which is in their possession and which was not subject matter of dispute in the Suit No. 52-A/1962 filed by Gulaban Bi. Thus, the issue was only whether of the time of executing decree in favour of Gulaban Bi, the land in possession of the appellants was handed over to Gulaban Bi and Kale Khan continued to be in possession of that land which was actually required to be recovered from his possession in execution of decree and handed over to Gulaban Bi. Learned lower Appellate Court rightly appreciated this issue vide, its order dated 30.7.1992 and thereafter by a conscious order directed local investigation to be made and report to be submitted. The Commissioner in its report, which was not objected to by any of the parties, clearly stated that successor in interest of Kale Khan are still continuing in possession of the land whereas the appellants have been dispossessed from the land which was in their possession. The Commissioner in its report, which was not objected to by any of the parties, clearly stated that successor in interest of Kale Khan are still continuing in possession of the land whereas the appellants have been dispossessed from the land which was in their possession. However, the learned Court below, though having obtained report by the Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C., ignored the same on incorrect factual premise and misconstruction of pleading and relief sought by the appellant. The appellant did not seek declaration of title against Gulaban Bi. The appellant claimed only possession. It was not necessary for the learned lower Appellate Court to examine the title of the appellants. Even unregistered sale deed constituted a valid and admissible evidence for collateral purposes to prove factum of possession. As per the provision contained in Order 26, Rule 10 (2), C.P.C., the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be evidence in the suit and shall form part of record. The report so collected from the Commissioner constituted evidence on record which could not be ground. It was obligatory on the part of the learned lower Appellate Court to examine and appreciate the entire evidence on record which included evidence collected by the Trial Court as also the report of the Commissioner and then decide the issue arising for consideration. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree deserves to be set aside. 8. Despite service of notice respondents have not appeared. 9. The suit was brought by Sanwal Ram and Yogendra for possession of the land as per Schedule-A against Gulaban Bi, Ramjan and Sattar on a specific plea of having purchased the land in dispute under two registered sale deed Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. Vide, sale deed (Ex. P-1), Yogendra purchased land from Smt. Bismilla Bi on 3.7.1963. Vide, registered sale deed Ex. P-2 Sanwal Ram also purchased land from Abdul Hussain. The appellant have pleaded in the plaint that they were in possession of the land pursuant to two sale deeds. Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. P-1 and Ex. P-2. Vide, sale deed (Ex. P-1), Yogendra purchased land from Smt. Bismilla Bi on 3.7.1963. Vide, registered sale deed Ex. P-2 Sanwal Ram also purchased land from Abdul Hussain. The appellant have pleaded in the plaint that they were in possession of the land pursuant to two sale deeds. Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2. The claim for possession and compensation is based on the pleading that while getting the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962, in respect of delivery of vacant possession, from Kale Khan, the land on which the appellants/plaintiff were in possession was handed over to Gulaban Bi, whereas Kale Khan, against whom decree of eviction was passed in favour of Gulaban Bi, continued in the possession of the land. In the written statement. Gulaban Bi took the plea that the land of which she has been given possession in execution of decree passed in her favour in Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962 was the one which was in possession of Kale Khan and from Kale Khan the possession was taken over to Gulaban Bi. 10. Vide, judgment decree dated 31.7.1973, suit was dismissed by the Trial Court against which an appeal was preferred which was allowed vide, judgment decree dated 16.11.1976 by the Appellate Court. The learned lower Appellate Court held that rejection of amendment application was illegal and on that basis plaintiff was permitted to amend the plaint reserving consequential right of amendment by the defendant, framing of issues and decision thereon, upon collection of evidence in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that against said judgment and decree. Civil Revision No. 151/1977 was preferred in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur which was partly allowed vide, order dated 11.4.1979. The order of remand by lower Appellate Court for decision by the Trial Court was set aside and instead it was directed that the lower Appellate Court shall give an opportunity to defendant to amend their written statement consequential to the amendment made by the plaintiff and thereafter frame appropriate issue if necessary and if evidence is necessary on that issue. Appellate Court shall refer that issue only for trial and on the basis of finding so received, to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 11. Appellate Court shall refer that issue only for trial and on the basis of finding so received, to decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law. 11. Thereafter, learned lower Appellate Court, in compliance of the order passed in Civil Revision No. 151/77, framed additional issue and directed Trial Court to collect evidence and give finding on the newly framed issue. The learned Trial Court recorded its finding on the evidence collected on newly framed issued vide, its order dated 31.7.1981. 12. in the meanwhile, application under Order XXVL Rule 9, C.P.C. was filed before the learned lower Appellate Court seeking appointment of Commissioner for making local investigation and submission of report. This is clear from the order-sheet dated 30th July, 1992 of the Appellate Court by which direction for local investigation, submission of report was ordered. The Revenue Inspector carried out local investigation and submitted a report on 30th November, 1992. This report dated 29th November, 1992, as the order-sheet of the Court below shows, was neither disputed by the appellant nor by the respondent defendant. None of the parties raised any objection to the correctness of this local investigation report submitted by a revenue authority based on local spot inspection. 13. The report of the Revenue Inspector, which is undisputed by any of the parties, clearly states that at the spot it was found that the land which was subject-matter of Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962 is in possession of Amir Khan, son of Kale Khan and Jahira Begam, wd/o Usman Khan. It is relevant to note that in the suit filed by Gulaban Bi on the pleading that male Khan was the tenant of Gulaban Bi, the learned Trial Court vide, order and judgment dated 26.7.1966 passed a decree in favour of Gulaban Bi that Gulaban Bi is entitled to possession of house described in the map attached with the plaint except the part of the house 'A','B','C' and 'D'. The plea of Kale Khan that he was in possession of the disputed property in his own title was rejected holding that he was the learnt of Gulaban Bi. 14. The plea of Kale Khan that he was in possession of the disputed property in his own title was rejected holding that he was the learnt of Gulaban Bi. 14. In the pleadings as well as in the evidence led before this Court by either of the parties, there is no material to prove that except the disputed property in respect of which decree was passed in favour of Gulaban Bi and against Kale Khan, Kale Khan or after his death his successors were in possession of any other house or land appurtenant and adjacent to disputed property in respect of which decree was passed in Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962. This would clearly lead to logical conclusion that after Kale Khan was dispossessed in execution of decree passed in Gulaban Bi in civil suit No. 52-A/1962 at the spot, there would be no possession of Kale Khan. 15. However, the local investigation report dated 29.11.1992 submitted by the Commissioner before learned lower Appellate Court shows that son of Kale Khan is in possession. Therefore, from this report, which is factually clear and not objected to or disputed by any of the parties, possession of Kale Khan and thereafter his son continued at the spot. In the local investigation report submitted by the Commissioner, it has been clearly stated that the land which has been handed over to possession of Gulaban Bi in execution of Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962 is not as per the judgment and decree. The report obtained on Commission by the learned lower Appellate Court unimpeachably establishes that son of Kale Khan is in possession of land at the spot and the disputed land by which possession has been given to Gulaban Bi is different from the land in respect of which decree was passed in favour of Gulaban in Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962. 16. Order 26, Rule 9, C.P.C. empowers the Court to issue a Commission to make investigation and submit report herein to the Court if the Court forms an opinion that local investigation is necessary for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. Rule 10(2) thereof clearly provides that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be the evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. Rule 10(2) thereof clearly provides that the report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him shall be the evidence in the suit and shall form part of the record. This rule further provides that the Court or, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit, may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report, or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 Order 26, further empowers the Court to direct further inquiry to be made where the Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner. 17. Thus, the report submitted by the Commissioner pursuant to the order of the lower Appellate Court constituted an evidence. 18. The learned lower Appellate Court however has ignored the report submitted by the Commissioner on the finding that Trial Court has recorded a contrary finding that the land in dispute in the present case is one and the same in respect of which decree was passed in favour of Gulaban Bi and against Kale Khan in Civil Suit No 52-A/1962. Moreover, the learned lower Appellate Court misdirected itself in going into the question of title and recording that as sale deed (Ex. P-3) was not registered, it does not give title on the basis of sale deed, Ex. P-2. At the same time, learned lower Appellate Court held that two documents, Ex. P-2. and Ex. P-3 could be used for collateral purpose of providing possession. 19. The suit was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of possessory, title. In such cases, it is not necessary for the parties to succeed in the suit, to establish its title. It is enough if long-standing peaceful possession is proved. In the event of dispossession except in accordance with law, a party can always claim decree of possession based solely on possessory title. It is quite apparent that learned lower Appellate Court swayed on the issue of title ignored to properly examine the evidentiary value of Commissioner's report dated 29.11.1992, particularly when this report was not objected to by any of the parties much less by Gulaban Bi. It is quite apparent that learned lower Appellate Court swayed on the issue of title ignored to properly examine the evidentiary value of Commissioner's report dated 29.11.1992, particularly when this report was not objected to by any of the parties much less by Gulaban Bi. The issue involved in the suit was not with regard to title but with regard to identification of the land which was subject-matter of Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962. In fact, the lower Appellate Court after having obtained the finding of the Trial Court on newly framed issued found it necessary to obtain the report of the Commissioner realising that the dispute was more with regard to identification of land rather than title of the parties. That being the nature of dispute between the parties, the local investigation report submitted by the Commissioner assumed great significance and constituted a very relevant evidence on record. However, considering more on the aspect of title, the learned lower Appellate Court ignored the spot inspection report of the Commissioner. 20. In the case of Pratapari N. Kothari v. John Braganza, (1999) 4 SCC 403 , it was held as under: "11. We have already extracted the summary of conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. That shows that his conclusions were vitiated by his view that the appellant had title and possession followed title. It is quite obvious that the learned Single Judge had not taken note of the principle of possessory title or the principle of law that a person who has been in long continuous possession can protect the same by seeking an injunction against any person in the world other than the true owner. It is also well settled that even the owner of the property can get back, his possession only by resorting to the due process of law." 21. In the case of Rame Gowda (D) by LRs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by LRs. and another, (2004) I SCC 769, it was held as under: "II. In the present ease the Trial Court has found the plaintiff as having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. In the present ease the Trial Court has found the plaintiff as having failed in proving his title. Nevertheless, he has been found to be in settled possession of the property. Even the defendant failed in proving his title over the disputed land so as to substantiate his entitlement to evict the plaintiff. The Trial Court, therefore, left the question of title open and proceeded to determine the suit on the basis of possession protecting the established possession and restraining the attempted interference therewith. The Trial Court and the High Court have rightly decided the suit. It is still open to the defendant-appellant to file a suit based on his title against the plaintiff-respondent and evict the latter on the former establishing his better right to possess the property." 22. In the result, on the first question of law, it has to be held that the Court below has committed gross illegality and perversity in not relying upon undisputed spot inspection report of the Commissioner dated 29.11.1992. 23. On the second substantial question of law, it has to be held that learned lower Appellate Court recorded perverse finding that the subject land of the present suit was one and the same as the subject land of Civil Suit No. 52-A/1962. 24. Consequently, this appeal deserves to be and is accordingly allowed with costs. The suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs is decreed in their favour and plaintiffs are entitled to possession in respect of disputed land as specified in the schedule appended to the plaint along with cost of the suit. 25. Decree be accordingly drawn. Second Appeal allowed.