JUDGMENT : EASWARAN S., J. The appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No.16/2006 as per judgment dated 31.01.2012 by the Munsiff’s Court, Perumbavoor, as confirmed by the first appellate court (Sub Court, Perumbavoor) in A.S.No.47/2012 by judgment dated 23.08.2013. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession, and permanent prohibitory & mandatory injunction. In the year 1991, the predecessor of the plaintiffs, Sri.Gopalapanicker, purchased a two storied building and property as per sale deed No.2665/91 of SRO, Perumbavoor. The said Gopalapanicker entrusted that building to the 1 st plaintiff for running textile business. In the year 1994, Sri.Gopalapanicker bequeathed the said property to the 1 st plaintiff as per Will Deed No.38/1994 of SRO, Perumbavoor. The plaint schedule property is situated in re-survey No.4 in Block No.78 of Perumbavoor Village. In the rear side of the aforesaid two storied building, there is a courtyard and there exists a pit for flow of rain water to the drainage on the side of M.C. Road. In the year 2005, a portion of the property was acquired by the Government for the development of M.C.Road. Since the 1 st plaintiff shifted his business to A.M Road, Perumbavoor, he was unaware of the consequential developments in the property. Later, it was found that the defendants’ shop room was demolished for development of the M.C. Road and that the defendants had constructed a new shop room by trespassing into the plaint schedule property and hence, the suit. 3. The defendants entered appearance and contested the claim of the plaintiffs by filing a written statement, wherein it was contended that the plaintiffs have not stated the extent of the property acquired by the Government for development of the M.C. Road. It was further contended that in the rear side of the defendants’ building, there is vacant land having an extent of 4 sq.metres. The attempt of the plaintiffs is to obtain possession of that property. The title of the property was traced through the document of the year 1966 by which the father of the 1 st defendant obtained 32 sq. metres of property in old survey No.256/14/4 and 256/14C/2. The attempt of the plaintiffs is to obtain possession of that property. The title of the property was traced through the document of the year 1966 by which the father of the 1 st defendant obtained 32 sq. metres of property in old survey No.256/14/4 and 256/14C/2. It was further contended that in the year 1972, Kunjahammed, the father of the 1 st defendant, gifted that property to his wife-Sabiyu, son-Anvar and daughter- Nabeesu (1st defendant) as per Gift Deed No.858/72 of SRO, Perumbavoor. Thereafter, in the year 1991, the properties were partitioned among the aforesaid three persons and the 1 st defendant obtained 52 sq. metres of property and the shop rooms therein. Out of the 52 sq. metres of property, 40 sq. metres of property is entered in re-survey No.5 of Block No.78 and the remaining 12 sq. metres of property in re-survey No.4 of Block No.78. When re-survey was conducted, 12 sq. metres of property in re-survey No.4 was incorrectly entered in the thandapper account of the 7 th plaintiff, and accordingly, a complaint was lodged before the re-survey adalat and the same was corrected by the revenue authorities. Therefore, it was prayed that the suit may be dismissed. 4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A3 documents were marked and PW1 to PW3 were examined, whereas on behalf of the defendants Exts.B1 to B11 documents were marked and DW1 was examined. Advocate commissioner was taken out for local inspection, who filed Exts.C1 series and C2 & C2(a) reports and sketches. 5. The trial court, on appreciation of evidence, framed the following issues for consideration: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of possession of item No.1 of A schedule on the strength of title? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get a mandatory injunction as prayed for? 3. Whether the permanent prohibitory injunction is allowable? 4. Reliefs as costs?” 6. On appreciation of material evidence, the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove their right, title and interest over the extent of the property scheduled in the plaint. On contrary, relying upon the report of the advocate commissioner, who after inspection of the property, measured out the property with the help of the survey records and found that the plaintiffs do not have the right, title and interest over the entire plaint schedule property. On contrary, relying upon the report of the advocate commissioner, who after inspection of the property, measured out the property with the help of the survey records and found that the plaintiffs do not have the right, title and interest over the entire plaint schedule property. Therefore, the trial court concluded that the extent of the property to which the plaintiffs have right, title and interest is 57 sq. metres and that the extent of the property which was acquired by the Government under the land acquisition proceedings having not been disclosed, there is suppression of material facts and dismissed the suit. Though aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiffs carried forward the challenge before the first appellate court, the appeal was also dismissed. Hence, the present second appeal. 7. While admitting the appeal, this Court issued notice on the following questions of law:- 1) When a plaintiff produces documents to prove his title and when the extent of the plaint schedule property is proved by the report of the commissioner, can a suit be dismissed for lack of pleadings which are supported by documents as above? Are not findings to the contrary tendered by the courts below incorrect. 2) Is not the report of commissioner evidence in a suit under order XXVI Rule 12(2) CPC? If a court is dissatisfied with the report of the commissioner, should not the court remit the said report for rectification? 3) Can a suit be dismissed owing to a mistake in the report of the commissioner? Is it not the duty of the adjudicating court to rectify such errors by remitting the commissioner’s report and by calling for a fresh report in the interest of justice? 4) Was the lower appellate court justified in dismissing the appeal having found that the plaintiff is entitled to an order of remand? Is not the action of the lower appellate court palpably erroneous?” 8. Heard Sri.Dennis Varghese, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and Sri.P.Thomas Geevarghese, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/plaintiffs. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the findings of the trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court are perverse and that the appreciation of evidence being perverse, this Court has to certainly interfere in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the findings of the trial court as confirmed by the first appellate court are perverse and that the appreciation of evidence being perverse, this Court has to certainly interfere in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure . It is the specific case of the appellants that the findings recorded by the trial court, solely based on the report of the advocate commissioner, cannot be accepted. The commissioner has not demarcated the property properly. According to the learned counsel, there is a gross irregularity and illegality on the part of the commissioner in identifying the property properly with reference to the title deed. It is further pointed out that non-disclosure of the extent of the property acquired in the land acquisition proceedings by the State is immaterial, insofar as the prayer for declaration of title and recovery of possession is concerned. 10. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the extent of the property which the plaintiffs had as per Ext.A1 was only 57 sq. metres and that the commissioner has identified the aforesaid property correctly. The non-disclosure of the extent of the property, which is acquired by the State Government is material insofar as the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs are concerned. Still further, it is pointed out that as per the original title document by which Sri. Kunjahammed derived right, title and interest over the property and thereafter, the property being devolved upon the 1 st defendant is 52 sq. metres. Out of the 52 sq. metres, 40 sq. metres of the property falls in re-survey No.5 and 12 sq. metres of property was wrongly entered in re-survey No.4 by the Village authorities while the re-survey was conducted. The said mistake having been rectified consequent to the complaint given by the 1 st defendant, the trial court has rightly found that the plaintiffs do not have any right, title and interest over the plaint schedule property in excess of 57 sq. metres covered by Ext.A1 document. 11. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar and have perused the records of the case. 12. metres covered by Ext.A1 document. 11. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the bar and have perused the records of the case. 12. As stated above, the substantials question of law framed by this Court while admitting the appeal is whether the suit can be dismissed for lack of pleadings, which are otherwise supported by the documents; whether the report of the advocate commissioner can form a piece of evidence in a suit and whether the commissioner has committed any mistake in reporting the exact extent of the property. 13. To answer the questions as raised above, it is imperative for this Court to look into the report of the advocate commissioner. When I perused the report of the advocate commissioner, it is specifically seen that the commissioner had identified the property based on its lie and possession with reference to the title documents. Admittedly, the plaintiffs derived right, title and interest over the property as per Ext.A1. The non-disclosure of the extent of the property, which was acquired by the State Government, assumes significance inasmuch as the claim for recovery of possession would ultimately depend upon the extent of the property, which is acquired by the State Government under the land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the trial court as well as the first appellate court rightly concluded that the non- disclosure of the extent of the property, which was acquired by the State Government, is material for determining the relief claimed by the appellants. 14. Coming to the challenge against the report of the advocate commissioner, it is pertinent to note that the appellants did not raise any objection to the report of the advocate commissioner by filing appropriate application to remit the same by adducing further evidence, if required. The non-filing of objection to the report of the advocate commissioner is crucial, inasmuch as the findings recorded by the advocate commissioner remain unchallenged. Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that the court below itself should have remitted the report of the advocate commissioner. In fact, in the absence of any objection, the trial court was under no obligation to remit the report of the advocate commissioner merely because the plaintiff wanted to do so. Therefore, the appellants cannot be heard to contend that the court below itself should have remitted the report of the advocate commissioner. In fact, in the absence of any objection, the trial court was under no obligation to remit the report of the advocate commissioner merely because the plaintiff wanted to do so. Coming to the contention of the appellants that the trial court had wrongly dismissed the suit finding that the appellants did not establish right, title and interest over the property, this Court cannot but disagree with the appellants inasmuch as the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to show that they had title over a larger extent of the property other than that covered by Ext.A1. On contrary, the defendants having established the factum of the title over their property, the trial court rightly dismissed the suit. 15. On a consideration of the entire facts of the present case, this Court cannot but conclude that the plaintiffs failed to prove the right, title and interest over the property. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit as confirmed by the first appellate court will have to be confirmed and the questions of law raised by this Court are thus answered against the appellants/plaintiffs. Resultantly, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.