In cases of boundary disputes, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is permissible to clarify boundaries, while ownership disputes demand separate adjudication.

ORDER :

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard M/s. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/respondent No.2/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nirmal (‘trial Court’) in I.A.No.277 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2021, dated 04.01.2024, wherein a petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the entire land in Sy.No.147/2 situated at Koutla (K) Shivar Village of Nirmal Rural and Mandal and to fix the boundaries and measure the suit land as per registered sale deed and also demarcate Ac.0-08 guntas of land in said survey number by fixing boundaries, has been allowed appointing an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries as per registered sale deeds of both the parties with respect to their land in Sy.No.147 of Koutla (K) Shivar Village of Nirmal Rural and Mandal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and she filed a suit against the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 herein seeking perpetual injunction with respect to suit schedule property consisting of Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.147/2 correlating to Sy.No.147 situated at Koutla (K) Shivar Village of Nirmal District. Respondent No.1 is claiming ownership and possession over the suit schedule property on the basis of a registered sale deed document bearing No.946/1981 dated 23.06.1981. Ever since purchase of the property, respondent No.1 is claiming to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of said agricultural land. While so, respondent No.2 and the petitioner herein have developed an evil eye and are trying to occupy the suit schedule property illegally. The petitioner and respondent No.2 came to the suit land, used force to manhandle respondent No.1 and dispossess her from the suit schedule property and therefore, a suit for perpetual injunction has been filed. In said suit at the time of trial, the petition under revision was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for resolving the dispute between the contesting parties.

4. In the petition under revision, respondent No.1 pleaded that he is claiming ownership and possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 23.06.1981. While so, the petitioner is claiming ownership and possession over land at measuring Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.147 and on that pretext trying to encroach and interfere with her property. In order to avoid litigation, there is a need for demarcating the entire land in Sy.No.147, which is to a total extent of Ac.2-7 guntas and fix boundaries. Such an exercise is not collection of evidence, but an exercise taken up to avoid multiplication of litigation.

5. The petitioner herein opposed the petition, stating that he has no knowledge about purchase of land to an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.147/2 by respondent No.1 herein and that the boundaries shown in the suit schedule are false and created for the purpose of case. The petitioner denied interfering with the land which belongs to respondent No.1. The petitioner pleaded that his brother (respondent No.2 herein) and himself have purchased Ac.0-08 guntas of land in Sy.No.147 and land admeasuring Ac.3-08 guntas in Sy.No.148 under a registered sale deed document bearing No.3060/1996 dated 16.12.1996 and are in possession of said land. It is further case of petitioner that respondent No.1 has filed a false suit to knock away their property. Lastly, it is pleaded that