In injunction suits, possession is the key issue, not title; Advocate Commissioners cannot be used primarily to collect evidence on disputed possession.

ORDER :

G.RADHA RANI, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 21.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.289 of 2018 in I.A.No.196 of 2018 in O.S.No.87 of 2018 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodad.

2. O.S.No.87 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff seeking the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property was an agricultural land to an extent of Ac.6-12.80 guntas in Survey No.41/1 situated at Kalakova Village of Munagala Mandal, Suryapet District with specific boundaries. Along with the suit, the petitioner - plaintiff filed I.A.No.196 of 2018 seeking temporary injunction. The defendants made their appearance and filed their written statement in the suit as well as counter in I.A.No.196 of 2018. At the time of hearing of the I.A, after the arguments were submitted by the counsel representing the petitioner - plaintiff, the respondents - defendants filed I.A.No.289 of 2018 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features and to measure the entire suit survey numbers in between the petitioners and the respondent and to fix boundary stones with the aid and assistance of the Mandal Surveyor.

3. Their contention was that one Sri Gundu Venkaiah was the Pattadar for an extent of Ac.11-92 guntas in Survey No.41 at Kalakova Village, Munagala Mandal. The father of the defendants purchased an extent of Ac.6-00 guntas out of total extent of Ac.11-92 guntas in the above survey numbers from Sri Gundu Venkaiah on 31.01.1981 through unregistered sale deed and had taken physical possession of the land. The trees aged more than 35 years stand as a distinct boundary between the land in possession of the defendants and the plaintiff. The land of the respondent - plaintiff was located on the northern side of the trees and the land of the defendants was located on the southern side of the trees and prayed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner with the above reliefs.

4. The plaintiff filed her counter in the above petition contending that the petition filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was not maintainable on the facts of the case or as per law. The said petition was filed only to drag on the matter in I.A.No.196 of 2018. After submitting her arguments and marking the documents on her behalf in the said I.A., the defendants came up with the false petition without submitting their arguments in I.A.No.196 of 2018. The neem trees aged 10 to 25 years were located in the suit property purchased by her through a registered sale deed. The trees standing as distinct boundary between the lands in possession of the plaintiff and defendants was a false story. The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff from the original owner late Gundu Venkaiah and his sons for a valuable consideration with specific boundaries on all sides and the said document was marked as Ex.P1 in I.A.No.196 of 2018. The same was not denied by the defendants. In the year 1987, when the plaintiff purchased the property from the original owner, it was clearly mentioned that at the southern side was the agricultural land of the vendor i.e. late Gundu Venkaiah . The notarised affidavits of the sons of late Gundu Venkaiah were also filed. The petitioners - defendants had no legal claim or right or possession over the suit property. The r