SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(AP) 640

M.JAGANNADHA RAO
N. Savitramma – Appellant
Versus
B. Changa Reddy – Respondent


Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The court explains that a plaintiff may obtain an Advocate-Commissioner to note physical features of the land as on the date of suit to prevent features from being obliterated, and that delaying could frustrate the purpose of best evidence (!) (!) . - It holds that the trial court has wide discretion on when a Commissioner can be appointed, including before issues are framed or even ex parte, and that notices may follow after appointment (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment supports appointing a Commissioner to note physical features (local investigation) while reserving localisation of land boundaries or title deeds for possible later commission after trial, with separate appointment if needed (!) .

What is the criteria and timing for appointing an Advocate-Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC?

What is the court's stance on appointing a commissioner ex parte and prior to framing of issues or after trial?

What are the scope limitations of appointing a commissioner regarding localisation of land versus noting physical features?


M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a revision preferred by the defendants against an order refusing to appoint a commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Tne suit was filed b/ the respondent plaintiff for a declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for parmanent injunction. Tha plaint schedule describes the land as bsing a n extent of 3 acres and 14 cents with Fruit bearing trees in S No 94/1 of Nadigadda village. The respondent plaintiffs case was that the suit property was originally owned by Addanki Nagaiah and his four sons jointly and they executed a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff on 12-1-1969 and put him in possession. The plaint also admits that the defendant-petitioner s family got one half share and that later there was a further division and the southern half share fell to the defendants and the northern half. Share fell to the plaintiff predecessors-in-title. In the northern half share thereara 38 mango trees and the southern half share allotted to the petitioner defendants was fully covered by a mango garden. The plaintiff alleges that there is no seperate fence dividing the 38 mango trees on the n

















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top