In boundary or encroachment disputes, courts must appoint a local commissioner absent an agreed map.

The plaintiff claimed ownership of land in Khasra Nos. 1044 and 1044/1103 and alleged that the appellant, defendant No. 3, had encroached on part of it by constructing a boundary wall.

The defendants denied encroachment and relied on revenue demarcation proceedings.

The trial Court dismissed the suit; the first appellate Court reversed that decision and decreed possession in the plaintiff’s favour.

In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court admitted the appeal on whether the Courts below should have appointed a local Commissioner to investigate the boundary and encroachment dispute.

Whether, in a dispute concerning boundaries or alleged encroachment, the Courts below were required to appoint a local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to inspect and report on the suit land.

Whether the judgments and decrees could stand when the dispute over the identity and boundaries of the land was decided without a Court-appointed local investigation.

Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC empowers a court to issue a commission for local investigation where it is requisite or proper to elucidate a matter in dispute.

In boundary or encroachment disputes involving the identity of land, particularly where there is no agreed map, a local investigation may be necessary to establish the relevant boundaries and the extent of possession; the Court may appoint a Commissioner suo motu, and no party application is essential.

The Court also relied on *Suman Pandagre v. Madhu Pandagre*, 2022 SCC OnLine MP 6030, for the principle that an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 may be raised at any stage, including on appeal, and on *Baliram v. Melaram*, AIR 2003 HP 87, for the Court’s power to appoint a Commissioner suo motu where local investigation is requisite and proper.

The Court synthesised these authorities to hold that, in such a dispute, a Commissioner’s investigation may be a legal necessity to obtain reliable evidence of the land’s identity and the parties’ possession.

The parties did not dispute their respective title to their survey numbers; the material dispute was whether the encroached portion formed part of the plaintiff’s land or the defendant’s land.

The earlier revenue demarcation was only evidence adduced by a party and was not a report of a Court-appointed Commissioner.

Because the Courts below decided the boundary and encroachment question on the evidence presented without obtaining a local investigation, the High Court held that the dispute had not been determined through the procedure required in the circumstances.

It remanded the matter to the trial Court to appoint a local Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, obtain the Commissioner’s report, and decide the suit afresh in accordance with law within three months of the parties’ appearance.

The parties were permitted to lead further evidence only to the extent of the Commissioner’s report; they were directed to appear before the trial Court on 22 October 2026.

The appeal was allowed, with no order as to costs.