IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
T.MADHAVI DEVI, J.
Md. Sardar – Appellant
Versus
Vallepu Narsing Rao – Respondent
C.R.P.No.1539 of 2024
Decided on : 21-08-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code – Order 26 Rule 9 – Civil Revision Petition against the dismissal of an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to verify physical features of property – The trial Court dismissed the application, stating it was an attempt to gather evidence regarding possession – The Court found the trial Court's reasoning erroneous and directed reconsideration for verification of physical features only. (Paras 10, 15)
Facts of the case: The petitioners, defendants in a suit for perpetual injunction, claimed ownership and possession of certain plots, asserting the existence of a mosque and mulgies on the property, while the plaintiffs contended the land was open plots. (Paras 2, 7)
Findings of Court: The trial Court's dismissal of the application was found to be erroneous, and the Court directed the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to verify the physical features of the property. (Paras 15, 16)
Issues: The main issue was whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was justified to ascertain the physical features of the property in dispute. (Paras 10, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that while an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to determine physical features, it should not be for gathering evidence regarding possession. (Paras 15)
Result: Civil Revision Petition allowed.
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the orders dated 19.02.2024 in I.A.No.826 of 2023 in O.S.No.567 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Civil Revision Petition is that the petitioners are defendants in the Suit. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction against the petitioners herein claiming possession over the plots in Survey No.103/D, situated at Kashipur Village, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, in respect of the Plot Nos.3, 5, 6, 10, 9, 11, 2. The ad-interim injunction was granted by the trial Court in I.A.No.1865 of 2019 in O.S.No.567 of 2019 under Section 26 Order 7 Rule 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code and after receipt of the notice and summons, the petitioners/defendants have filed a detailed counter affidavit and written statement denying the possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the petition scheduled property and on their behalf filed certain documents i.e., Certified copy of Urdu sale deed along with translation, electricity bills along with photographs to the said suit scheduled property. According to the petitioners, they have purchased the petition scheduled property admeasuring an extent of Ac.0-19 guntas in Survey No.103, situated at Kashipur Village, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District and that they have constructed mulgies over the suit schedule property and that there is also a mosque in the suit schedule property since more than thirty years.
3. The interim injunction petition came up for arguments on 06.06.2023 and the petitioners prayed the trial Court to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to verify the physical features of the petition schedule property so as to come to correct conclusion and to resolve the dispute. The trial Court, however, dismissed the same by observing that the petitioners are trying to ascertain with regard to who is in the possession of the property and that it cannot be done by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.
Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the grounds raised in the Civil Revision Petition. He further placed reliance upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
2. Mundladinne Gopal Reddy Vs. P.Ramachandra Reddy, 2016 (6) ALD 124;
3. G.Surender Reddy Vs. Smt.M.Lakshmi and Two Others, CRP Nos.1111 & 1112 of 2020, dated 22.01.2024..
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied upon the impugned order. He further placed reliance upon the following judgment in support of his contentions:
6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that in the suit, the petitioners have claimed the suit schedule property to be open plots i.e., Plots No.2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 of Kashipur Village, Kandi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District, but the survey numbers are not mentioned in the suit schedule property. However, in Para-1 of the plaint, the survey number is mentioned as 103/D.
7. In written statement filed by the defendants, they claimed to have purchased 19 guntas of land in Survey No.103 and that since the date of purchase of property in the year 1970, they are enjoying the same and they are in peaceful possession without any third party interference. It is also stated that the defendants have constructed a mosque and the said mosque is in existence since more than thirty years and a house has also been constructed thereon and was allotted a house bearing No.3-47/1.
8. The I.A.No.826 of 2023 was filed by the defendants in the suit to appoint an Advocate Commissioner, to verify the physical features of the petition schedule property with the assistance of revenue authorities/Mandal surveyor of Kandhi Mandal, Sanga Reddy District and also
An Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to verify physical features of property but not to ascertain possession in a suit for injunction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.