1. The plaintiffs in the above suits are the petitioners in both the revisions.

2. The revisions are filed challenging the order refusing to appoint a Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The suit in O.S.No.159 of 2009 is filed

(I). for declaration that the sale deed dated 12/8/2005 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant as null and void for want of consideration and it is vitiated by fraud

(ii). for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from the first defendant with all trees, fixtures, factory, roads and water courses etc., with good condition

(iii). For injunction restraining the first defendant from cutting and removing the trees and other plantations and transporting the same from the plaint schedule property and

(iv). for recovery of future mesne profits.

4. The suit in O.S.No.129 of 2009 is filed

(I). for declaration that the document dated 12/8/2005 executed by the second defendant as Power of Attorney Holder of the first plaintiff in favour of the first defendant is cancelled since null and void.

(ii). For permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from encumbering, alienating, sub-leasing, creating charges or lien and or inducting new persons in the alleged lease hold right over the plaint schedule property and from cutting and removing any trees or altering the physical features of the property or to do any act of waste prejudicial to the right, claim and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property.

(iii). For payment of future mesne profits for year at the rate of Rs.79,36.950/-.

5. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed an application for appointment of Commissioner. The sale deed and the lease deed alleged are executed in favour of the second respondent/second defendant, who is the nephew of the first defendant. The plaintiff is the wife of the first defendant.

6. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property is an extent of 40 acres which was a rubber estate. The suit property is fully covered with high quality rubber yielding trees and other plantations. In the documents sought to be set aside, the first defendant had deliberately not mentioned about the availability of rubber trees and other valuable trees, but simply mentioned only as purayidam. As the plaintiffs had filed the suit for recovery of possession and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from cutting and removing the trees which are worth lakhs of rupees, it is necessary to appoint a Commissioner to enumerate the number of trees standing in the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for appointment of a commissioner to make a local inspection in the plaint schedule property.

7. In the petition, the plaintiff had specifically mentioned in the points to be noted as follows:-

(I). To note the physical features of the plaint schedule property.

(ii). To count the rubber trees available in the plaint schedule property and also to note various structures including factory, office labour quarters, store etc., which are available in the plaint schedule property.

(iii). To count all other trees and other natures available in the plaint schedule property.

(iv). To report about the general maintenance and the growth of the trees available in the plaint schedule property.

(v). To note the number of yielding rubber trees.

(vi). Such other points that may be pointed out to the Commissioner at the time of his visit.

8. The application was resisted by the first and second respondents by filing their counter. It was specifically denied by the first defendant that there was no suppression of materials and the apprehension alleged by the plaintiff is baseless and devoid of merits and there was no need for taking a inventory and value the trees and the appointment of the Commissioner would be beyond the scope of the suit.

9. The Principal Sub-Judge, who tried the application, dismissed the same. Aggrieved by which the above Civil Revisions are filed.

10.