JUDGMENT : Easwaran S., J. Admit. 2. Government Pleader takes notice for the respondents. 3. After hearing Shri.R.S.Kalkura, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri.K.Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the view that on a short point this appeal could be disposed of and the following substantial questions of law are framed for consideration:- (i) Is it not that the Courts below ought not have relied on the Commission Report as the same contains serious mistakes impinging upon the description of the plaint schedule properties (ii) Is it not that the suppression of the original survey plan by the respondents which is in their custody ought to have been seriously viewed by the courts below and should not have the courts below taken an adverse inference? (iii) Should not have the courts below directed the plaint schedule property be measured, identified and located as per the title deeds which clearly describe the property as being lying in old survey No. 2444/127, 128, 129, 130 and 131? (iv) Was it right on the part of the Commissioner to have relied on resurvey records without recourse to the original survey plan pertaining to the description of the property in the title deeds of the plaintiff? 4. With consent, taken on board for final hearing. 5. The plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and consequential reliefs, is the appellant. According to the appellant, an extent of 9 cents of property and a building in survey No.2444/127, 128, 129, 130 and 131 which falls in Resurvey No.80 and 81 in block No.119 of Thycaud Village are obtained by her by virtue of a settlement deed No.2769/2005 of SRO Chalai. When the resurvey proceedings happened, the actual extent of property was entered as 2.5 Ares (1.21 Ares in Resurvey No.80 and 0.69 Ares in Resurvey No.81) of Thycaud Village. The predecessor of the plaintiff was in possession of the 9 cents of property vide registered document No.1109/1122 M.E. Though several requests were made to the revenue authorities to correct the same in terms of Section 11 of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 , and that an appeal was preferred, no action was taken in the said request. Hence the suit. Hence the suit. The defendants resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff is seeking a declaration of title over the Government Poramboke land and therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought for. As regards the proceedings before the resurvey authority, it was pointed out that the subsequent report shows that the 4 cents of property is in the Government Poramboke and therefore the reliefs cannot be granted. On behalf of the plaintiff, Exts.A1 to A9 were marked and PW1 was examined. On behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B6 were marked and DW1 was examined. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who filed Ext.C1 report and Ext.C1(a) sketch. The trial court even without referring to the said report, proceeded to dismiss the suit saying that the plaintiff has not established her case. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved, the plaintiff filed an appeal. The First Appellate Court took note of the report of the Advocate Commissioner and found that the Advocate Commissioner had correctly found that the property of the plaintiff was lying in a Poramboke land and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for declaration as sought for and dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal. 6. In this appeal, the appellant contends that the judgment of the trial court is unsustainable inasmuch as the trial court has not even bothered to ascertain the true state of facts as evident from Ext.B6 as well as the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Referring to Ext.B6, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the report is in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the trial court ignored the same. It is further pointed out that going by the records of the land register, the 9 cents of property in the old survey numbers lies in favour of the plaintiff. The existence of the building and the shop room is also clearly spelt out in Ext.B6 Land Register. It is thus pointed out that, the trial court has misconstrued the evidence on record. That apart, it is pointed out that Ext.B6 does not show the date of communication of the proceedings to the plaintiff. 7. Per contra, Shri.K. Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader supported the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below and contended that what is sought for is the declaration of the title over the Government Poramboke land, which is impermissible. 7. Per contra, Shri.K. Denny Devassy, the learned Senior Government Pleader supported the concurrent findings rendered by the courts below and contended that what is sought for is the declaration of the title over the Government Poramboke land, which is impermissible. Referring to Ext.B6, the Senior Government Pleader submitted that there is no warrant for observation that Ext.B6 record is in favour of the appellant. Referring to Ext.B3 Basic Tax Receipt, the learned Senior Government Pleader pointed out that the property covered in Survey No.2444/127, 128, 129 and 130 having 1 cent each is Government Poramboke land and therefore the declaration cannot be granted. 8. I have considered the rival submissions raised across the Bar, perused the judgments rendered by the courts below and records of the case. 9. On an anxious consideration of the submissions raised across the Bar, this Court finds that certain infirmities looms large over the findings recorded by the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court. The trial court did not even bother to advert to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. It is not seen discussed in the judgment of the trial court. The trial court did not deem it appropriate even to mark the Advocate Commissioner report. The appellant / plaintiff asserts before this Court that the objections were filed against the report. There is no consideration on the merit of the respective contentions. That apart, when the appeal was considered by the First Appellate Court, referred the report of the Advocate Commissioner, which was not even marked and discussed by the trial court. On appreciation of the report, the First Appellate Court found that the report of the Advocate Commissioner is proper. 10. Order 26 Rule 10(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates an application of mind by the trial court as regards the objection, before deciding the acceptability of the report. In the present case, as noticed above, the trial court has not even referred to the report of the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the report stands admitted in evidence or not. In such circumstances, it was wholly impermissible for the First Appellate Court to have embarked upon the exercise to decide as to whether the report of the Advocate Commissioner should be accepted or not. 11. Therefore, it is unclear as to whether the report stands admitted in evidence or not. In such circumstances, it was wholly impermissible for the First Appellate Court to have embarked upon the exercise to decide as to whether the report of the Advocate Commissioner should be accepted or not. 11. Now coming to the respective claims on the merits of the matter, it is seen that, what is disputed by the appellant is the mistake that has crept in the resurvey proceedings. Ext.B6 would show that the appellant was not communicated about the decision on her appeal. That apart, merely because the appellant has raised an objection in terms of the provisions of the Kerala Survey and Boundaries Act, 1961 , ipso facto will not lead to a conclusion that the orders passed therein have become final. The parties are always at liberty to assert their right before the Civil Court and that the entries in the Resurvey Records cannot be taken as conclusive and ultimate, the same would depend upon the result of the civil proceedings. 12. Viewed in the above angle, this Court cannot subscribe to the findings of the courts below by granting a sanctity to Ext.B6 records. The title of the plaintiff is traced to a document of the year 1949. What is exactly the position as regards the property, as reflected from the old survey records is not evident. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is a total lack of clarity in these aspects, especially when the Government asserts that by resurvey proceedings, a certain portion of the property covered under Survey No.2444/127, 128, 129 and 130 has been included as Government Poramboke. These matters would require an elaborate consideration. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to answer the substantial questions of law as framed above in favour of the appellant, and of the further view that the matter should regain attention of the trial court by conducting a retrial of O.S No.193/2010 before the I Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, afresh. In the result, the judgment and decree in A.S No.33/2020 on the files of the Additional District Court- III, Thiruvanathapuram, affirming the dismissal of O.S No.193/2010 is reversed. O.S No.193/2010 will stand restored to the files of I Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The party shall appear before the I st Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on 06.04.2026. In the result, the judgment and decree in A.S No.33/2020 on the files of the Additional District Court- III, Thiruvanathapuram, affirming the dismissal of O.S No.193/2010 is reversed. O.S No.193/2010 will stand restored to the files of I Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The party shall appear before the I st Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, on 06.04.2026. On appearance, the trial court shall consider the suit afresh, after permitting the parties to adduce fresh evidence. The appellant will be at liberty to take out a fresh Advocate Commissioner in order to enable the identification of the property with reference to the old survey records and also the prior deed. The respondents will also be at liberty to adduce such evidence as they deem fit circumstances. The trial court shall endeavor to dispose of the appeal as expeditious as possible. Registry shall transmit the records forthwith. Ordered accordingly.