A court can re-entrust a warrant to a commissioner for further investigation and report on important aspects required.

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dtd. 25/11/2021, dismissing the petition in I.A.No.231 of 2020 in I.A.No.586 of 2018 in O.S.No.49 of 2015 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to direct the advocate commissioner who was already appointed in I.A.No.586 of 2018 to revisit the petition schedule property to note down whether the properties in Sy.Nos.74-2, 75-3, 75-5 and 75-2 forms a single plot or not, with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Lepakshi, with reference to FMB sketch and to file report.

2. Heard Sri P. Narahari Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitionerplaintiff and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the respondentdefendant. The revision petitioner is the petitionerplaintiff and the respondent herein is the respondent defendant.

3. The petitioner filed the suit for declaration of the right, title and possession over the suit schedule property and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendant, his men etc., from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the following plaint schedule property.

"Property situated in RD and SRO of Hindupur within Pulimithi villge polam and panchayat area Lepakshi Mandal Govt. Dry Sy.No.75-5 Extent Ac.1.84 cents bounded by East Land in Sy.No.78 West land in Sy.No.75-3 and 75-2 North Land in sy.No.74 South Hindupur-Pulimithi Road and Sy.No.75-4 in which a bore-well and accessories thereon and 50 coconut trees, 40 mango trees, 10 tamarind trees, 100 teak trees and 100 silver Oke trees are in existence in the suit schedule property."

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that originally late D.Kotipanna and S. Kariyappa are owners of Ac.0.94 cents each, a total of Ac.1.88 cents in Sy.No.75-5 and Kotipanna died prior to 1994 leaving behind his wife, Smt. Nanjamma. On 17/1/1994, Smt. Nanjamma sold Ac.0.94 cents in SY.No.75-5 to A.V.Krupashankara Rao under a registered sale deed and delivered possession. A.V.Krupashankara Rao, along with his other family members sold this property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dtd. 30/4/1996 and put the plaintiff in its possession. Thus, the total plaint schedule property of Ac.1.88 cents was purchased. Later, Kariyappa and his family members also sold the remaining Ac.0.94 cents in Sy.No.75-5 to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dtd. 29/4/1998, and put him in its possession. The plaintiff purchased land in Sy.Nos.74-2, 75-3 and 75-2 located on the west and north of the plaint schedule property (a total extent of Ac.4.40 cents in all four (4) survey numbers) form a single plot with common boundaries. The plaintiff planted stones all around his property of Ac.4.40 cents with an entrance gate on its southern side. In the plaint schedule property, there is a bore-well dug by A.V.Krupashankara Rao with electricity connection No.258 which was obtained in the name of A.V.Krupashankara Rao. After purchase of property, the plaintiff planted 50 coconut trees, 40 mango trees, 10 tamarind trees, 100 teak trees and 100 silver oak trees on boundaries on four sides and is raising crops and commercial flower bushes in the land within the boundary line four sides. The plaintiff got constructed one watchman shed and a strong room for storage of agricultural implements in the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is paying land revenue and pattadar passbook and title deed were issued and his name was mutated in the ROR. The defendant or his predecessor never interfered with possession of the plaintiff or his vendor nor raised objection for issuance of pattadar passbook or title deed. However, recently before, i.e., on 7/4/2015, the defendant filed appeal before the RDO, Penukonda, for cancellation of pattadar passbook and title deed issued in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant is trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property by r