High Court will not substitute its own judgment for that of the inferior Court unless it is "arbitrary or capricious" or there was no evidence.

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.04.2002 passed in I.A.No.1370 of 2000 in O.S.No.224 of 1998 by the District Munsif, Ponneri, dismissing the Petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C, refusing to appoint Advocate Commissioner. The Defendants are the Revision Petitioners.

2. Facts necessitated for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition could briefly be stated thus:-

Case of the Plaintiff is that the Suit Property originally belonged to one Subba Naidu. The said Subba Naidu has conveyed the Suit Property to one Selvamani Mudaliar under a Registered Sale Deed dated 30.11.1970. Since the date of purchase, Selvamani was in possession and enjoyment of the Plaint Schedule Property. One Malla Munuswamy Naidu (Father of the Defendants 1,2,4 and 5) and Ramakrishna Naidu and Lingenti Rengappa Naidu have filed the Suit in O.S.No.6 of 1972 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur against the said Selvamani Mudaliar and his Vendor for the relief of Permanent Injunction. The Suit was dismissed on 05.02.1973. The Appeal in A.S.No.164 of 1977 preferred by Malla Munuswamy Naidu and others before Subordinate Court, Chinglepet was also dismissed on 10.01.1979. The Second Appeal preferred by the Defendants was also dismissed by 16.04.1981.

3. Further case of the Plaintiffs is that the said Selvamani Mudaliar died leaving his Wife, Sons and Daughters as Legal Heirs. Patta for the suit property was changed in the name of Krishnaveni Ammal, wife of late Selvamani Mudaliar. The Plaintiff has purchased the suit property under a Sale Deed dated 14.02.1996 from the Legal Heirs of Selvamani Mudaliar. The patta has been transferred in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property, cultivating personally and paying land revenue to the Government. The Defendants having lost their case in all the forums have no manner of Right, Title or Interest over the Suit Property. The Defendants have no right to interfere with the possession of the Suit Property by the Plaintiff. Since the Defendants attempted to interfere with the possession of the suit property in the third week of April 1998, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit in O.S.No.224 of 1998 for Permanent Injunction.

4. Resisting the suit, the Defendants 2 to 4 have filed the Written Statement (adopted by other Defendants)contending that Malla Munuswamy Naidu and others have filed O.S.No.6 of 1972. Inspite of dismissal of O.S.No.6 of 1972 and A.S.No.164 of 1977, Malla Munuswamy Naidu and the Defendants-1,2,4 and 5 have continued to be in possession of the suit property. Malla Munuswamy Naidu, the First Plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 1972 has constructed a house in the Suit Property and has been residing there. The Defendants own property on the Northern Side. Along with their property on the Northern Side, nearly 50 cents in the Northern Portion of the suit property was being enjoyed as house sites by the Defendants and their Father – Malla Munuswamy Naidu. Even about 20 years ago, the Electric Service connection in S.C.No.403 has been obtained by the Fourth Defendant to put up houses in those houses constructed in the suit property. The Defendants have been paying the current consumption charges. The truth and validity of the grant of patta in the name of Krishnaveni Ammal is denied. Even if any patta has been granted, it is not binding on the Defendants and on the basis of the alleged Patta, no right or possession could be claimed in the Suit Property. The Defendants 1 to 5 and the Second Plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 1972 have raised Guva and Coconut trees in 2.50 acres of the Southern Side of the Suit Property more than ten years ago and the trees have been yielding usufructs. The Defendants are cultivating the lands and enjoying usefructs of Guva and Coconut trees raised in 2.50 acres of the Southern side suit property. In view of long possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property, the Defendants pe