The burden of proving title lies on the plaintiff who asserts it, and failure to discharge that burden leads to dismissal of the suit. The Commissioner's report cannot be used as substantive evidence to determine the identity and extent of the land.

( 1 ) DEFENDANTS have filed this second appeal under the following circumstances. Plaintiff filed O. S. 168/68 against the defendants for declaration of his title to house site situate in the north and west of defendants land. According to him he had purchased it under three sale deeds Exs, A-2, A-3 and A-4.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS filed their written statement and denied the plaintiff s title and claimed that they are the owners of the land situated in the north and west of their land. The learned trial Judge found that the plaintiff had not established his title therefore dismissed the plaintiff s suit. Plaintiff appealed to the District Court against the decree of the trial Court. The learned appellate Judge pattly allowed the appeal and passed in favour of the plaintiff decree for a part of his claim. It is the appellate decree which is challenged by the defendants in this second appeal: burden of proving his title in [lieu upon the plaintiff who asserts it. Paragraph 8 of the appellate Judgment shows that the boundaries shown in the old documents, which the parties produced, did not admittedly exist. Secondly he found that the parties to the suit were not parties to those documents. Thirdly he observed that none was personally aware of the transactions and the recitals made in the documents and of the physical features of the land in question. He therefore thought that the old documents upon which parties placed reliance did not throw any light on the question of plaintiff s title to the land in question. So far as oral evidence was concerned he recorded the conclusion that in light of oral evidence the description of the boundaries given in old documents was not correct. He next observed that except P. W. 2 none of the parties had any personal knowledge of the physical features of the land in dispute and that therefore no reliance could be placed upon the oral evidence of the parties. Next he observed that no attempt was made by either side before the trial court to locate the respective bites purchased by each of the parties under various sale deeds ana to prove their identity and extent. It is clear from these observations made by the learned appellate Judge that the plaintiff had failed to locate the land which he had purchased and to which he was claiming title to determine its identity and extent. Having recorded these conclusions the only source open to him was to dismiss the plaintiff s suit. Whether the defendants proved their title or not was immaterial. Plaintiff cannot get declaration of his title merely because defendant has failed to prove his. Burden of proving title which the plaintiff claims lies on him and if he fails to discharge that burden his suit must fail irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his title to the land in question or not. However, the learned appellate Judge went a step further and appointed a Commissioner to locate various plots and to fix up their boundaries and extents. Ihs Commissioner entered upon the task entrusted to him and with the assistance of licenced surveyors he fixed up survey stones and located various pjots. It is also observed in the appellate Judgment that he then found the extent of the lands shown in the title deeds produced by the parlies and filed in Court. What the learned appellate judge did was to treat the Commissioner s repoit and plan as substantive evidence for the purpose of determining the identity and extent of land. In my opinion he could not nave done so. The report of the commissioner does not have any evidentiary value except to show what he saw on the site when he inspected it. Except wnat he personally saw existing on the site at the time when he inspected the land no other fact with reference to the report can be pioved. becoudly the commissioner s report is not regarded as a substantive evidence. The commissioner s repoit can be used only for the limned puipose ot appreciating me evidence which the parties have led with referen