Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 2381
High Court of Judicature at Madras
K. VENKATARAMAN
M. Ganapathy Gounder & Others
Versus
B. Chandrakala
Civil Revision Petition No.804 of 2009
Decided On: 27-04-2011
For the Petitioners:Mr.K.Subramanian, Senior Counsel, Mr. M. Mohammed Safi, Advocate.
For Respondent:Mr. K.M. Vijayan, Senior Counsel, Mr. Baskar, Advocates.
The purpose of the advocate commissioner's appointment should align with the intended scope of inspection and reporting, in this case, for valuation of the suit property.
Headnote:
Advocate Commissioner - Inspection of Suit Property - The court modified the order to direct the advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and file a report, instead of just inspecting the building.
Fact of the Case:
The defendants filed a revision petition against the order allowing the appointment of an advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property for valuation purposes.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the advocate commissioner should have been directed to inspect the suit property and file a report on its value, rather than just inspecting the building.
Issues: The main issue was the scope of the advocate commissioner's inspection and reporting.
Ratio Decidendi: The purpose of the advocate commissioner's appointment was to ascertain the value of the suit property, and therefore, the court modified the order to align with this purpose.
Final Decision: The court modified the order to direct the advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and file a report, and the civil revision petition was ordered accordingly with no costs.
1. The present civil revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, F.T.C.No.1, Coimbatore, dated 20.01.2009 made in I.A.No.665 of 2007 in O.S.No.453 of 2005.
2. The defendants in the said suit have filed the revision herein and the plaintiff therein is the respondent.
3. The first respondent herein has filed the suit originally in O.S.No.1707 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for declaration of her title over the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants thereon, some of the petitioners herein from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In the said suit, the petitioners herein have filed an application in I.A.No.665 of 2007 for appointment of an advocate commissioner for inspection of the suit property for the purpose of ascertaining the value of the property with the assistance of Civil Engineer and to file a report.
4. The said application was allowed by the court below. But however, the advocate commissioner was directed to make an inspection of the building alone and file a report. The present revision is directed against the said order.
5. In fact challenging the order, the respondent herein has filed a revision petition in C.R.P.No.495 of 2009. The said revision was dismissed today.
6. The only grievance of the petitioners are that the court below should have directed the advocate commissioner to inspect the suit property and file a report. In stead, the court below directed the advocate commissioner to inspect the building and file a report thereon.
7. The purpose of appointment of an advocate commissioner was to find out the value of the suit property. In such circumstances, the court below ought not have directed the advocate commissioner to inspect the building alone, in stead directing him to inspect the suit property and file a report with regard the value. In view of the above stated position, the impugned order made in I.A.No.665 of 2007 in O.S.No.453 of 2005 by the learned Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge (FTC No.1), Coimbatore is modified to the effect that the advocate commissioner shall inspect the suit property and file a report.
8. With the above modification, this civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. However, no order as to costs.
