Courts must appoint a local commissioner to resolve disputed land boundaries absent an agreed map.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership and possession of Khasra No. 16, a 0.13-acre strip, and alleged that the M.P. Housing Board was attempting to interfere with it. The Board contended that the disputed land formed part of Khasra No. 18, which it had acquired, and denied the plaintiffs’ possession.

The trial court partly decreed the claim, but the first appellate court reversed that decree and dismissed the claim in full.

1. Whether the first appellate court’s finding that the disputed land was part of Khasra No. 18 and not Khasra No. 16 was perverse.

2. Whether, given the dispute over the identity and boundary of the land, the courts could determine the dispute without a local investigation by a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC.

Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC empowers a court to appoint a commissioner to conduct a local investigation where it is requisite or proper to elucidate a matter in dispute.

In a boundary, identity-of-land, or encroachment dispute, where there is no agreed map, local investigation may be necessary to establish the relevant boundaries and possession; the court may appoint a commissioner suo motu, and neither a party’s application nor a request at a particular stage is essential.

The court relied on Bagdiram v. Ramsingh (Second Appeal No. 23/2005), Prembai v. Ghanshyam, 2010 (3) MPLJ 345, Loknath Gautam v. State of M.P., 2018 SCC OnLine MP 600, Suman Pandagre v. Madhu Pandagre, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 6030, Jaswant v. Dindayal, 2011 (2) MPLJ 576, and other authorities for these principles.

The dispute was not merely about title: the parties disagreed about whether the land in question fell within the plaintiffs’ Khasra No. 16 or the Board’s acquired Khasra No. 18.

Applying the principles governing boundary and land-identity disputes, the Court concluded that this question could not properly be resolved without local investigation and a commissioner’s report. Because the courts below had decided the dispute without that evidence, their decrees could not stand.

It set aside the judgments and decrees of both courts below and remanded the matter to the trial court to appoint a local commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the CPC, obtain a report, and decide the case afresh in accordance with law. The parties may lead evidence only to the extent of the commissioner’s report. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.