In boundary or encroachment disputes without an agreed map, courts must appoint a local commissioner.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership of Khasra No. 676/1 and sought possession of a portion allegedly encroached upon by defendant No. 1, who maintained that his house stood on his own adjoining land, Khasra No. 676/2.

The trial court decreed possession, and the first appellate court affirmed.

In the defendant’s second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court framed a substantial question of law concerning whether the courts below should have appointed a local Commissioner to demarcate the land.

1. Whether, where the dispute concerns boundaries or encroachment and there is no agreed map, the courts below were required to appoint a local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC for demarcation and a spot-inspection report.

Order 26 Rule 9 CPC empowers a court to commission a local investigation where it is requisite or proper to elucidate a matter in dispute.

The court relied on the principle that, in a boundary, land-identity, or encroachment dispute without an agreed map, local investigation by a competent Commissioner is necessary to establish the location and extent of the disputed land; the court may issue the commission suo motu, and no party application is required.

The court also referred to Section 100 CPC as the basis for the second appeal.

The parties disputed whether the occupied portion formed part of the plaintiffs’ Khasra No. 676/1 or the defendant’s Khasra No. 676/2, and there was no agreed map on record.

Because the central issue was the identity and demarcation of the land, oral and documentary evidence alone did not provide the necessary basis to determine encroachment.

Applying the authorities on Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, the High Court held that the courts below should have directed a local investigation, irrespective of whether either party had applied for one.

It remanded the matter to the trial court to appoint a local Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC, obtain a report, and decide the case afresh in accordance with law.

The parties may lead further evidence only to the extent of the Commissioner’s report; they were directed to appear before the trial court on 16 October 2026.

The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.