Commissioner was appointed by the Trial Court/Civil Court and in fact the report ExP1(Ex.D1) placed on record by the appellants was a demarcation report conducted by the Halqa Kanungo under the instructions of the Tehsildar of the area at the back of the plaintiff-respondents. Moreover, while discarding the said report, the lower Appellate Court has found that before giving the report, the revenue officer has not fixed pucca points and therefore, the report could not have been relied upon. It may further be noticed that the reasoning given by the trial Court to accept the report of the Local Commissioner, has been rightly rejected by the lower Appellate Court, because the PW1 Jagan Nath was examined on 19.3.2002 whereas the demarcation report is the result of an application moved by the appellants on 25.11.2002 and the demarcation report was submitted in February, 2003 and as such, PW-1 Jagan Nath could not have said anything with regard to the said demarcation report. The question of possession is a question of fact. On the basis of arguments raised, learned counsel for the appellants wants this Court to take a different view than taken by the lower Appellate Court, after reappraising the evidence, which is not permissible under Section 100 CPC, as there is no misreading of the evidence which has resulted into perverse findings by the lower Appellate Court.
