The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is essential in property disputes to resolve issues regarding identity and boundaries, aiding in just adjudication.

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition arises against the order passed by the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruppur, in I.A.No.423 of 2024 in O.S.No.162 of 2023, dated 09.12.2024.

2. The Civil Revision Petitioner is the plaintiff.

3. O.S.No.162 of 2023 is a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that their predecessor in interest one Velusamy Gounder, together with one Kanagasabapathy Vaduganatha Gounder and one Balasubramania Gounder, purchased a large portion including the suit schedule mentioned property on 03.12.1959. Ten days thereafter, these three persons partitioned the property amongst themselves. In the said partition, A-schedule property went to the share of Kanagasabapathy Vaduganatha Gounder, B schedule property fell to the share of Balasubramania Gounder and C schedule property was allotted to the share of Velusamy Gounder.

5. Velusamy Gounder passed away on 07.03.1983. The plaintiff and the other legal heirs of Velusamy Gounder partitioned the property amongst themselves by way of registered partition deed dated 27.11.2008. The cause of action for the suit is that on 03.09.2023, the defendants attempted to trespass into the property. This constrained the plaintiff to lodge a complaint with the Avinasipalayam Police Station against the alleged act of trespass. Being a civil dispute and since the defendants did not stop with their attempt to grabbing the property, the plaintiff brought forth the suit. Suit summon was served on the defendants.

6. The 3^rd defendant filed written statement admitting to the fact of purchase by Velusamy Gounder, Kanagasabapathy Vaduganatha Gounder and Balasubramania Gounder. He also accepted the date of partition on 11.12.1959.

7. He pleaded that Velusamy Gounder was allotted 1.25 acres under one side and 4 acres on the other with a common cart track running between two parcels of land. It was further pleaded that the property allotted to Velusamy Gounder is located east of the defendant's property, which is situate at S.F.No.74. On the death of Kanagasabapathy Vaduganatha Gounder, the defendants 1 to 4 succeeded to his estate as his legal heirs. Subsequent to this succession, they pleaded they are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The defendants further alleged that in the partition deed dated 27.11.2008, inter-se entered into the legal heirs of Velusamy Gounder, the boundaries were deliberately mis-described.

8. The case of the 3^rd defendant is that the plaintiff is attempting to grab the property that fell to the share of Kanagasabapathy Vaduganatha Gounder, on the strength of this misleading partition deed. They state that on account of the fact that the plaintiff wanted to grab their property, they attempted to interfere with the possession of the defendants.

9. Consequent there to, the defendants also presented a counter claim. In the counter claim, they sought for relief of declaration that the inter-se partition deed dated 27.11.2008, entered the legal heirs of Velusamy Gounder, is not binding on them and for permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of items II and III of the counter claim schedule mentioned properties. A reply statement has also been received from the plaintiff to the counter claim.

10. Since there is a dispute regarding the identity of the pathway, an application was taken out by the defendants for appointment o