JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants/plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned 4th Additional District Judge, Durg passed in Civil Suit No.48-A/2014, whereby the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs has been dismissed. 2. (i) The facts of the case in brief are that the appellants/plaintiffs are the real brothers. They had purchased a plot bearing Khasra No.2767/2, area admeasuring 0.02 Hectares i.e. 38x60=2280 sq. ft. by a registered sale deed dated 05.02.2001 (Ex-P/6) from Pundlik. The surrounding of the plot was also shown in the sale deed and adjacent to the plot, two feet lane was remaining and one house of Nana Keshav Rao Singhote was shown to be as identification mark. The plaintiffs pleaded that initially the land, which was bearing Khasra No.293/2, was sold by one Kedarnath Chandrakar to Pundlik on 16.07.1979, which was admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. It was further pleaded that Kedarnath who was also owner of Khasra No.293 sold a part of it i.e. Plot No.76 admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. to Nana Singhote. The appellants/plaintiffs purchased Khasra No.2767/2 from Pundlik on 05.02.2001. The area of the plot was 38x60 sq. ft. (ii) The original seller Pundlik also sold two feet of lane to Nana Keshavrao Singhote. It was pleaded that the property which was purchased by the plaintiffs through sale deed (Ex- P/6) also contains description of the four corners/boundaries as towards north, vacant land of others is shown, towards south, the house of Singhote is shown, towards east, 30 feet unconstructed road (Kaccha Road) is shown and towards west, vacant land is shown. (iii) The plaintiffs further pleaded that adjacent to their land, two feet lane of 120 sq. ft., which was sold by Pundlik to Nana Keshavrao, is situated. Further it was pleaded that Smt. Suhaga Bai, widow of Kedarnath Chandrakar sold Khasra No.2635/1 to defendants Nos.2 & 3 Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal by a registered sale deed dated 27.11.2012. According to the plaintiffs, when they discovered that the subsequent purchasers were trying to construct the house over the said plot which was belonging to the plaintiffs and was purchased on 05.02.2001, consequently it was objected and before the Revenue Courts, different proceedings were drawn and eventually a suit was filed in the year 2014. According to the plaintiffs, when they discovered that the subsequent purchasers were trying to construct the house over the said plot which was belonging to the plaintiffs and was purchased on 05.02.2001, consequently it was objected and before the Revenue Courts, different proceedings were drawn and eventually a suit was filed in the year 2014. (iv) During the pendency of the civil suit, it was pleaded that the defendants/purchasers Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal started construction over the aforesaid land purchased by the plaintiffs. It was pleaded that Suhaga Bai in order to get wrongful gain substituted the area and overlapped which was already sold to the plaintiffs inasmuch as Khasra No.2635/1 of Mauja Kohka and was for road, drain and open land, therefore, criminal conspiracy has been hatched against the plaintiffs. Therefore, by such purchase, the purchasers do not get any right over the said land. (v) When the construction started, the plaintiffs complained to the Municipal Corporation and though the Municipal Corporation directed the defendant Nos.2 & 3 to stop the construction, but despite the same the defendant Nos.2 & 3 continued with their construction, which persuaded the plaintiffs to file civil suit. The amendment was also carried out in the plaint praying that since construction of the house has been carried out on Khasra No.2767/2, plot No.77 by the defendants Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal during pendency of the suit, the house be demolished and the vacant possession be handed over to the plaintiffs. (vi) The plaint would show that initially the suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction, but since the construction was carried out during pendency of the suit, amendment was carried out making prayer that the construction of the house be removed by demolition and the plaintiffs be handed the vacant possession of the plot bearing Khasra No. 2767/02, Plot No. 77, as the suit was already valued on the cost/revenue of the sale deed at Rs.14,10,000/- and the court fee was also paid. 3. Per contra, defendant Nos.2 & 3, who were the subsequent purchasers mainly contested and stated that they have purchased the suit land bearing Khasra No.2635/01. It was further pleaded that they have not encroached upon the land belonging to the plaintiffs i.e. Plot No.77 comprised in Khasra No.2767/02 and they are in possession of their own property. 3. Per contra, defendant Nos.2 & 3, who were the subsequent purchasers mainly contested and stated that they have purchased the suit land bearing Khasra No.2635/01. It was further pleaded that they have not encroached upon the land belonging to the plaintiffs i.e. Plot No.77 comprised in Khasra No.2767/02 and they are in possession of their own property. Primarily, it was pleaded that the identity of both the plots are different and the defendant Nos.2 & 3 are in lawful possession of the plot bearing Khasra No.2635/01 and accordingly they have constructed the house. 4. The learned Additional District Judge on the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 11 issues and primarily it was observed by Issue No.1 to 4 that the plaintiffs had purchased the land bearing Khasra No.2767/02, which bears the old Khasra No.293/02. It was further held in affirmative that the subject land bearing Khasra No.293/02 admeasuring 2400 Sq. ft. was initially purchased by Pundlik from Kedarnath, however it was held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the same land has been sold by showing the land bearing Khasra No.2635/01 by Suhaga Bai to defendant Nos.2 & 3 Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal. It was further held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the land situated at Kohka bearing Khasra No.2635/01 admeasuring 2280 sq. ft. was illegally sold to the purchasers and accordingly the prayer for cancellation of sale deed dated 27.11.2012 was denied. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the present appeal has been filed. 5. (i) The appellant No.1 has engaged his counsel Mr. K. K. Dewangan, who is appearing on his behalf and appellant No.2 is appearing in person. The appellant No.2 in person along with the counsel would submit that the first sale deed (Ex-P/3) was executed between Kedarnath, husband of Suhaga Bai and Pundlik of the land bearing Khasra No.293/02 admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. The appellants referred to Rin-Pustika (Ex-P/4) and would submit that Khasra No.293/02 was subsequently made as Khasra No.2767/02 as per the Rin- Pustika. (ii) They would also submit that Kedarnath, who sold the land to Pundlik initially also sold a part of land by Ex. P/5 to Nana Singhghote on 16.07.1979. ft. The appellants referred to Rin-Pustika (Ex-P/4) and would submit that Khasra No.293/02 was subsequently made as Khasra No.2767/02 as per the Rin- Pustika. (ii) They would also submit that Kedarnath, who sold the land to Pundlik initially also sold a part of land by Ex. P/5 to Nana Singhghote on 16.07.1979. It was further submitted that Nana Singhote had constructed the house and he had encroached upon some part of land, as such though initially the contact was for purchase of 2400 sq ft. of land from Pundlik, some land was found less, consequently on 05.02.2001 (Ex.P/6) only purchase of land 38X60 was made and adjacent 2ft lane was subsequently sold by Pundlik to Nana Singhote. (iii) The appellants would further submit that the same land with the same surrounding was sold by Suhaga Bai, widow of Kedarnath to defendant Nos.2 & 3 Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal by sale deed dated 27.11.2012 (Ex. P/11). They would further submit that in the description of the said land, the same surrounding has been shown, wherein in South, house of Singhote is being shown, which is the identification benchmark. They would therefore submit that under these circumstances, since the boundary clearly demonstrate the identity of the land, the learned trial Court completely misjudged itself to hold otherwise. (iv) The appellants would further submit that the demarcation report was at the behest of the Court vide Ex-P/2, whereas Panchnama of plot is Ex. P/1. The demarcation report has been proved by PW-01 Vyas Narayan, who was the R.I. The demarcation report along with the map of sale deed would clearly identify the plot. Referring to the order passed by the Commissioner, Raipur dated 05.05.2014 (Ex.P/14), appellants would submit that since the finding was recorded by the Commissioner that Khasra No.2635/01 is reserved for public purpose, therefore, in order to get away with that, the defendants have encroached upon the land of the plaintiffs, but the learned Additional District Judge has completely misdirected and failed to consider this aspect, therefore, the wrong finding has been arrived at. (v) The appellants referred to the judgment passed by this Court in MA No.98/2014 parties being Pramod Kumar and others vs Smt. Sohaba Bai and others and would submit that order dated 14.05.2015, the construction was stayed by this Court, despite the same the construction was carried out by the defendant Nos.2 & 3, as such the amendment was incorporated in the plaint seeking prayer for demolition of the construction and vacant possession of the land and the suit was already valued five times of the revenue of the land. Therefore, the appeal be allowed and the appellants/plaintiffs be declared title holder of the land and vacant possession of the land be handed over to the plaintiffs by demolishing the house constructed by the defendant Nos.2 & 3. 6. Per contra, Mr. Devershi Thakur, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.8 & 9/defendant Nos.2 & 3 Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal would submit that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge is well merited, which would be evident from the document (Ex.D/1), which is the demarcation report. The said demarcation report would show that the subject land is at a distance of 85 meters from Khasra No.2635 and 2715 which would lead to show that the construction, which was carried out by the defendant Nos.2 & 3, is affirmed by demarcation report (Ex.D/1). The land of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 is away from the land of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have completely misjudged the identity of the plot. He would further submit that the learned Additional District Judge has rightly relied on such demarcation report to hold that the land on which the construction was carried out does not belong to the plaintiffs and the identity of the land is different. Learned counsel would further submit that the statement of the plaintiffs in the crossexamination has itself affirmed such demarcation to have been held and consequently, no doubt is left over about the identity of the plot and the defendants have purchased the same after payment of sale consideration, therefore, their right is required to be reserved. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Per contra, Mr. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Per contra, Mr. Shravan Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 5/defendant Nos.1 (d) & 1 (e) Govind Prasad and Girdhar Prasad would submit that according to the admission made by plaintiffs, they themselves admitted the fact that they are not the owner of the land bearing Khasra No.2635/1. He has referred to para 2 of the plaint and submit that since there is no dispute about the identity of the land, the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge is correct. He would further submit that the sale deed was executed only after demarcation of the land and the demarcation report is Ex-D/1, therefore, the sale cannot be put to doubt. Thus, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The primary question which falls for consideration is about the identity of the plot/land. The plaintiffs have relied on the identity of the plot from the very inception and the nucleus of the sale starts from the sale deed 16.07.1979 (Ex-P/3), whereby Kedarnath had sold plot No.77 of Khasra No.293/02 admeasuring 2400 sq. ft. to Pundlik, son of Devra. Along with the said sale-deed, the Rin-Pustika was also on record which is Ex-P/4, which shows that Khasra No.293/02 was subsequently new numbered as Khasra No.2767 admeasuring 0.02 Hectare. The another sale deed 05.02.2001 (Ex-P/8) which is on record would show that on the same date when the plaintiffs purchased the land from Pundlik bearing Khasra No.2767/2 by a registered sale deed dated 05.02.2001 (Ex-P/6), Pundlik also sold another parcel and piece of land bearing Khasra No.2767, area 120 sq. ft. by Ex. P/8 dated 05.02.2001 to Nana Keshavrao Singhote. The boundary of the property has been shown as towards the North plot No.78 situates, towards the South plot No.76 exists, towards east 30 feet road exists and towards west open plot exists. 10. In order to find out the identity of disputed plot in respect of property sold by Kedarnath to Nana Singhote by another sale deed dated 16.07.1979 (Ex.P/5) is perused. The description of boundaries in such deed has been shown as towards North plot No.77, which was sold to Pundlik, towards South plot No.75, towards east road and towards west open land. The description of boundaries in such deed has been shown as towards North plot No.77, which was sold to Pundlik, towards South plot No.75, towards east road and towards west open land. Pundlik who had purchased the land from Kedarnath subsequently sold the same to the plaintiffs vide Ex.P/6 dated 05.02.2001. The particulars of the said land is shown as part of Khasra No.2767 admeasuring 2280 sq.ft. and the description of the boundaries of the same has been shown as, towards North open plot, towards South house of Singhote, towards east 30ft road and towards west open plot. The seller Pundlik also sold another parcel and piece of land by Ex. P/8 on the same date i.e. 05.02.2001 to Nana Keshavrao Singhote bearing Khasra No.2767, area 120 sq. ft. The description of boundaries of the same shows that towards north plot of Praveen Kumar i.e. plaintiff No. 2 is being shown, towards south house of seller i.e. Pundlik, towards east 30ft road and towards west open plot. 11. Now, comes the sale deed under challenge Ex-P/11 dated 27.11.2012 executed by Suhaga Bai in favour of the defendant Nos.2 & 3 Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal, the same would show that the part of Khasra No.2635/1 was sold by Suhaga Bai, widow of Kedarnath Chandrakar through power of attorney holder in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 Lalchand Agrawal and Avinash Agrawal. The area is 2280 sq.ft. The surrounding boundaries/fourcorners of the same are shown as towards north plot of G. Ravi Kumar, towards south house of Singhote, towards east 25 ft road and towards west a lane is being shown. The comparison of boundaries of Ex-P/6 dated 05.02.2001 and Ex-P/11 dated 27.11.2012 would show that towards north open plot is shown in Ex-P/6. Whereas in Ex-P/11 plot of G. Ravi Kumar is shown, towards south in both the sale deeds, the house of Singhote is shown. Likewise in Ex-P/6 towards east, 30 feet road is shown. Whereas in Ex-P/11, 25 feet road is too shown. Further towards west in Ex-P/6, open plot is shown, whereas in Ex-P/11 a lane is shown. Whereas in Ex-P/11 plot of G. Ravi Kumar is shown, towards south in both the sale deeds, the house of Singhote is shown. Likewise in Ex-P/6 towards east, 30 feet road is shown. Whereas in Ex-P/11, 25 feet road is too shown. Further towards west in Ex-P/6, open plot is shown, whereas in Ex-P/11 a lane is shown. Prima facie by placement of both maps of the sale deed of plaintiffs (Ex-P/6) and sale deed under challenge (Ex- P/11) by comparison would show that that the demarcation of the subject land was already done and the benchmark identification of both the plots is shown as house of Singhote in south. 12. Normally when there is dispute about the measurement of the land, then the boundaries shown in the sale deed will prevail over the measurement. This proposition has been laid down by the Privy Council in the matter of The Palestine Kupat AM Bank Cooperative Society Ltd. vs Government of Palestine and others, reported in 1948 SCC Online PC 24, wherein it has been held that in case of grant of land when there is a conflict between the description by boundaries and the area mentioned in the grant, the principle of preferring the description by fixed boundaries to the conflicting description by area should be applied in the construction of the grant, and the statement as to area should be rejected as falsa demonstrate. Thus, it would be lucid that the boundaries, when shown in detail in order to decide the rival claim regarding location and physical character, will prevail over the measurement. 13. This preposition has been further followed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subhaga and others vs Shobha and others, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 466 , wherein it has been held that in case of any discrepancies about the identification of the properties, the property to be identified by the boundaries and the boundaries normally should prevail over measurement. 14. Applying the aforesaid principle in the given facts of this case, the prior sale deeds and nucleus of title which takes into sweep the boundaries of property as has been shown in the sale deeds (Ex.P/3 & Ex.P/5) would show that the subsequent purchaser has shown the same identity of the property vide Ex-P/6 dated 05.02.2001 in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants. The property purchased by respondent Nos.8 & 9 (defendant Nos.2 & 3) on 27.11.2012 is a subsequent sale deed, wherein the same description of the property has been shown, as shown in the earlier sale deeds of plaintiffs and their predecessors in title. Therefore, the earlier description of the property would prevail over and the authenticity can be traced from the very inception also and the nucleolus shows that the property, which was purchased and subsequently transferred in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3, was in hold and was acquired by the plaintiffs/appellants by earlier sale deed in their favour. Prima facie therefore the description of the subject land mentioned in sale deed (Ex-P/6) would prevail over. The sale deed (Ex-P/6) dated 05.02.2001 executed in favour of appellants would prevail over the description of property which is shown in the sale deed dated 27.11.2012 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3. 15. Apart from this fact, when we spin outer theory of further identification of property, perusal of the order sheets of the Court would show that since the identity of the property was in dispute, the Court in exercise of power under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC appointed a Tahsildar on 11.12.2015 to identify the property. Pursuant to such order, the Tahsildar vide its memo dated 22.06.2016 sent a demarcation report of Khasra No.2767/2 to the Court and the said demarcation report and the panchnama were filed as Ex-P/1 & P/2. The author of the said demarcation report is examined as PW-1 Vyas Narayan. According to the demarcation report, after thorough examination, the discrepancy was found in the map and it was concluded that the disputed land was part of Khasra No.293/2, whereas in the map, it was wrongfully shown in between 2637 to 2715 and it was finally concluded that the suit property claimed by the plaintiffs comprises in Khasra No.293 and the boundaries were also affirmed, meaning thereby the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants were in their property was fortified. When the identity of such like nature is obtained by the Court, it would carry a presumptive value of the correctness unless the report is rebutted. The Commissioner who was the part of the demarcation was called in the Court by PW-1 and he was examined. When the identity of such like nature is obtained by the Court, it would carry a presumptive value of the correctness unless the report is rebutted. The Commissioner who was the part of the demarcation was called in the Court by PW-1 and he was examined. In the statement of the Commissioner as well as in the cross-examination, nothing has been brought forward to deny the report of the commissioner and the panchnama was also prepared. 16. The manner in which the report of Commissioner appointed by the Court under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC is to be dealt by the Court has been highlighted by the Privy Council in the matter of Chandan Mull Indra Kumar and others vs Chiman Lal Girdhar Das Parek and another, reported in 1939 SCC Online PC 49, wherein it has been held as under:- “It has been laid down that interference with the result of a long and careful local investigation except upon clearly defined and sufficient grounds is to be deprecated. It is not safe for a Court to act as an expert and to overrule the elaborate report of a commissioner whose integrity and carefulness are unquestioned, whose careful and laborious execution of his task was proved by his report, and who had not blindly adopted the assertions of either party. This in their Lordships' judgment is a correct statement of the principle to be adopted in dealing with the commissioner's report. It is substantially the principle already laid down by this Board in the case of Ranee Surut Soondree Debea v. Baboo Prosnna Coomar Tagore (1870) 13 Moo. I.A. 607 at p. 617.” The aforesaid proposition laid down by the Privy Council has been affirmed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Siddiqui vs Ram Janmbhoomi Temple, reported in (2020) 1 SCC 1 , wherein it was held that Rule 9 of Order 26 is a substantive power allowing the Court to issue local investigation, however it does not foreclose the right of the other party to lead evidence contrary to finding of commissioner, but at the same when it was not objected, then in such case there is no reason to doubt the same. 17. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 have heavily relied on the document (Ex-D/1) and the learned Trial Court also relied on the same. 17. The defendant Nos.2 & 3 have heavily relied on the document (Ex-D/1) and the learned Trial Court also relied on the same. Perusal of Ex-D/1 would show that the first page contains title page of some CRMP No.94/2014 in between the parties and apart from that photocopies of certain demarcation reports are enclosed with the same. Perusal of the record would show that an application was filed by the defendant No.2 on 16.03.2012 to lead secondary evidence in respect of demarcation report. The Trial Court by its order dated 14.12.2018 dismissed the application with observation that the defendants can prove the said demarcation report by obtaining a certified copy of the same, but why the first page of the CRMP No.94/2014 was marked as Ex-D/1 and how the photocopy of demarcation report became a part of it, we are unable to understand. 18. It appears that despite rejection of the application to lead secondary evidence to place on record the demarcation report, surreptitiously the copy of demarcation report was placed on record and though the said demarcation report do not bear any exhibit mark, yet the learned Trial Court ignoring the fact about earlier dismissal relied upon it, thereby failed in its duty to honor its own order. Therefore, the reliance which has been placed by the learned Trial Court is completely misconceived as demarcation report actually was not at all on record, on which the Court proceeded. Furthermore, the demarcation report which was at the behest of the Court (Ex-P/1) speaks about the fact that the disputed land is situated at Khasra No.293/2 and by mistake it has been shown in map in between Nos.2721 to 2782 instead of in between Nos.2637 to 2715, but it has been shown in 2782 as such it is not the part of Khasra No.293/2. Therefore, even if certain facts were stated by the plaintiffs in their cross-examination, the same do not destroy the fact that the land claimed by the defendant Nos.2 & 3 does not fall in Khasra No.293/2. 19. Now coming back to defining the boundaries by the Revenue Court, Section 129 of the CG Land Revenue Code 1959 gives the Tahsildar or any Revenue Officer the power to demarcate the boundaries. 19. Now coming back to defining the boundaries by the Revenue Court, Section 129 of the CG Land Revenue Code 1959 gives the Tahsildar or any Revenue Officer the power to demarcate the boundaries. In the instant case in hand the commission was issued by the Court in exercise of power under Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC to demarcate the boundary to Tahsildar and the Tahsildar has come out with the demarcation report filed as Ex-P/2. The demarcation report having not put to any question by the defendants and coupled with the fact that the sale deed defines the boundaries, it will prevail over the oral statement of the defendants specially when the document (Ex-P/12) and the order of the Additional Commissioner (Ex-P/14) dated 05.05.2014 record that Khasra No.2635/1, which was purchased by the defendants, was a public land according to layout passed. The sale deed of the defendants (Ex-P/11) is in respect of Khasra No.2635/1, which was reserved for public purpose. There is nothing on record before us to show that the order of learned Commissioner dated 05.05.2014, wherein nature of land in hold of defendant Nos.2 & 3 to be a public land, has been set aside. Thus, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court has completely misdirected itself and failed in its duty to act upon the document which was not even allowed to be exhibited and thereby came to a wrong finding of fact. Accordingly we set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 passed by the learned Trial Court and allow this appeal. 20. Before us, an order dated 14.05.2015 passed in MA No.98/2014 at the behest of the appellant was placed, which shows that there was stay on the construction, the operative part of the order dated 14.05.2015 is reproduced hereinbelow:- 9. In consequence, in view of the facts of the case, since the defendants have already started construction, considering the dispute, it is held that in case the identity of the land is demarcated as Khasra No.2767/2 then in such case the plaintiffs may loose their right to hold the property. Considering these facts, it is directed that since the civil suit is pending, no further construction shall be carried out by the defendants/respondents and no third party interest shall be affected by the plaintiffs/appellants so as to give rise to the multiplicity of the proceeding. Considering these facts, it is directed that since the civil suit is pending, no further construction shall be carried out by the defendants/respondents and no third party interest shall be affected by the plaintiffs/appellants so as to give rise to the multiplicity of the proceeding. The plaintiffs will be at liberty to amend the suit, if so advised. But despite the aforesaid order, the defendant Nos.2 & 3 have raised the construction over the disputed land, thus it is for the defendants to suffer, as the order of the Court cannot be shelved by deliberate act of the parties. 21. In view of the above finding, we direct that the plaintiffs are entitled for the vacant possession of the plot bearing Khasra No.2767/2, admeasuring 2280 sq. ft. by demolition of the construction/house, if so desires. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed. A decree be drawn up accordingly.