Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO
For the Respondent: T V S PRABHAKARA RAO

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

1. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is justified when there is a genuine need to clarify property boundaries and location, especially when the available evidence is insufficient to determine these aspects (!) (!) (!) (!) .

2. The purpose of appointing an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is to elucidate disputed facts, particularly in cases involving identification, location, or measurement of property, and not merely to gather evidence to support a party’s claim (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The Court’s function is to decide issues of possession and ownership, and such judicial functions cannot be delegated to an Advocate Commissioner. The role of the Commissioner is primarily to assist the Court by providing factual findings on physical features or local investigations (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The appointment of a Commissioner is generally appropriate when the evidence on record is inadequate or ambiguous, and when physical verification or survey is necessary to clarify the facts, particularly regarding boundaries or encroachments (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The Court must carefully consider whether the purpose of the investigation is to collect evidence or to elucidate facts, and should avoid appointing Commissioners for purposes that amount to evidence collection, which is the judicial function of the Court (!) (!) (!) .

6. When disputes involve boundary identification or physical features, local investigation through a Commissioner is appropriate and necessary to prevent ambiguity and to ensure accurate adjudication (!) (!) (!) .

7. The Court has the discretion to direct objections to the Commissioner’s report and to examine the report and the physical features on record during trial proceedings. This ensures that the parties have an opportunity to contest or clarify the findings (!) (!) .

8. The Court’s decision to appoint or reject an Advocate Commissioner should be based on the facts of each case, particularly considering whether the evidence on record is sufficient or if physical verification is essential for a fair resolution (!) (!) (!) .

9. The final order in this case set aside the trial court’s earlier decision to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, emphasizing that the purpose of such an appointment is to clarify disputed facts, not to gather evidence for the parties (!) (!) .

10. The case underscores that the Court’s primary role is to determine ownership and possession, and local investigations or physical surveys should be employed only when necessary to elucidate facts that are not clearly evident from the documents or available evidence (!) (!) .

These points summarize the principles governing the appointment of Advocate Commissioners in property disputes, emphasizing the importance of their role in clarifying facts rather than collecting evidence, and highlighting the Court’s authority and discretion in such matters.