This is a defendant's appeal. The respondent herein was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 3438 of 1980 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore. He filed a suit against the defendant for declaration of his title, possession and for mandatory injunction and also for mesne profits. The suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed on merits on 8-1-1988. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 8-1-1988, the respondent-plaintiff had filed an appeal before this Court in R.F.A. No. 361 of 1988. The learned Judge of this Court on 25th September, 1998 allowed the appeal in part and set aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and remitted the matter to the Trial Court with a direction to appoint a survey Commissioner at the instance of the plaintiff to locate the properties covered under the sale deeds and then to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. This Court also directed the parties to adduce further evidence if any. With the above directions, the appeal was allowed. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, the Trial Court appointed Assistant Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement as Commissioner on the application filed by the plaintiff A surveyor one Narayana, in-charge Supervisor executed the warrant and he submitted his report. Thereafter one P.L. Venkatesh Murthy was examined as C.W. 1. According to him he was working as an ADLR, Bangalore Sub-Division till 13-6-2002 and thereafter he has handed over charge to one B.S. Venugopal, who has been examined as C.W. 2 and P.L. Venkatesh Murthy deposed that he had not executed the warrant. C.W. 2-Venugopal also deposed the Court that he has not carried the work personally and he is not aware of commission work. The commission work was executed by one Narayana and he has only sent the report submitted by Narayana, who was examined as C.W. 3, the Trial Court relied upon the evidence of C.W. 3 and has decreed the suit of the plaintiff Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court the present appeal is filed by the defendants.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

3. Though several grounds are urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant in his appeal memo, at the time or argument he raised an important question in regard to the right of Narayana-C.W. 3 to execute the warrant and accepting of such report of C.W. 3 by the Court contending that the report submitted by Narayana is without• jurisdiction and the Trial Court without considering this fact relying upon the report submitted by C.W. 3-Narayana had decreed the suit. Therefore he contends that the appeal has to be allowed only on this short ground.

4. Mr. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondent made an attempt to convince this Court that even though C.W. 3 who executed the warrant was not the ADLR of Bangalore Sub-Division, there is no flaw in the report submitted by him as he is an expert in the field, therefore, he requests this Court to dismiss the appeal.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the only point to be considered is whether the Trial Court is justified in accepting the report of C.W. 3-Narayana, even though he was not the Commissioner appointed in the case and whether the Commissioner appointed by the Court under Order 26, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has got power to delegate his power to another person. The facts of this case are not disputed. This Court while allowing the RFA has permitted the plaintiff to file an application for appointment of surveyor as a Commissioner. In obedience to the directions of this Court, the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of the Commissioner. Accordingly the Court allowed the application; appointing the ADLR, Bangalore, as Commissioner. But unfortunately the ADLR, Bangalore Sub-Division instead of executing the warrant has directed the Supervisor, C.W. 3-Narayana to execute the same. Accordingly the Supervisor has executed the warrant and at the time