1987 Supreme(AP) 639

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.JAGANADHA RAO
N.Savitramma - Appellant
Versus
B.Chenga Reddy - Respondent
C.R.P.No.1433/87
Decided On : 11-11-87
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. K. Somakonda Reddy,Mr. K.V. Reddy

Headnote:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, Or 26, Rules 9 and 18-Suit for declaration of title of plaintiff to suit land - Plaint alleging interalia of defendant taking advantage of nonexistence of fence separating his land - Dismissal of application by defendants for appointment of Commissioner to note physical features of land and to locate the same before evidence is led - Not sustainable

       Held : It cannot be said that on Commissioner could be appointed before the issues are framed or the evidence is led whenever such physical features on the land or other property are required to be noted, it becomes necessary for the Court to appoint a Commissioner to note these features The plaintiff can certainly take the assistance of the Court to have the physical features of the property noted by an Officer of the Court, namely, an Advocate Commissioner, before the said features are obliterated either by the opposite party or by the vagaries of nature If the Physical features of the land as on the date of the suit are allowed to be obliterated and a Commissioner is to be appointed several years after filing of the suit or at the and of trial or during trial, the very object of getting the best evidence before the Court would be frustrated That would enable the defendants in the suit to take advantage of their might and appear the physical features of the land and also protract the trial till such time that those features were obliterated by lapse of time or by the defendants action The evidence of a Commissioner appointed at the earlier stages of the suit to note the physical features would certainly go a long way in helping the Court to arrive at the truth

       1985 [1] APLJ 15 [SN] and unreported decision in CRPNo: 3291/83, dt 6-7-1984, dissented from

       CRP Partly Allowed