The appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner is unwarranted in the absence of genuine ambiguity regarding property identification; the burden to prove ownership lies with the plaintiffs.

ORDER :

J.SREENIVAS RAO, J.

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the orders dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, where under the I.A.No.3 of 2025 in O.S. No.167 of 2016 filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct local investigation, survey, demarcation and to note down the physical features of the land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 situated at Paloncha Town and Mandal, with the help of a Mandal Surveyor, was dismissed.

2. Revision petitioners herein are the defendants and respondents are the plaintiffs in the main suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.16 of 2016 before the trial Court.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of this civil revision petition briefly stated are;

3.1 That the plaintiffs filed suit in O.S.No.167 of 2016 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property to an extent of 213 square yards, by demolishing the existing RCC building bearing House No.22-3-22, from the defendants and also for perpetual injunction, wherein they stated that they are owners and possessors of the land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in Sy.No.786 situated at Nehru Nagar, Dammapeta X Road, Paloncha Town and they constructed residential houses in the said land to some extent and their grandfather namely Kanagala Narayana purchased the said land through a registered sale deed dated 22.03.1968 vide document bearing No.142 of 1968 and their grandfather has orally partitioned his self acquired properties among his three sons and himself in the year 1977. The above said Ac.0-13 guntas of land fell to the share of the father of the plaintiffs, as such, his possession is being recorded in the pahanies since 1977-78. Their grandfather died in the year 2000.

3.2. It is further averred that their father constructed a tiled house and compound wall in the year 1980 in an extent of 881.82 square yards, out of the said Ac.0-13 guntas, and he paid property tax to the house bearing No.22-3-22 since 1980 and he died in the year 1986. After his death, the plaintiffs succeeded the properties of their father, including the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No.1 and late Laxman Rao. Laxman Rao and father of the plaintiffs namely Suryanarayana are natural brothers. Basing on the request of K.Laxman Rao, mother of the plaintiffs namely Ramanujamma permitted him to construct a hut in an extent of 213 square yards, out of 0-13 guntas, in the year 1993 and the said Laxman Rao agreed to vacate the said land whenever demanded by the family members of the plaintiffs and constructed a hut therein with an oral undertaking.

3.3. It is also averred that defendant No.1 constructed the existing RCC building in the suit schedule property with the oral permission of the plaintiffs and their mother, with an undertaking to vacate the suit property whenever demanded by the family members of the plaintiffs. The mother of the plaintiffs died in the year 2013. Defendant No.1 and her sons are residing in the suit property with the consent of the plaintiffs only. On 07.08.2016, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property by demolishing the existing building, as the plaintiffs are in need of the same for their personal use. However, the defendants did not consider their demand. At that stage, plaintiffs f