Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr Justice V. SIVAGNANAM
R. RAJKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
P. PARAMASIVAM – Respondent
Easement - Civil Revision Petition - Act Section List - The court upheld the appointment of a commissioner to assess a disputed pathway's physical features, interpreting relevant provisions related to easement rights to ensure proper adjudication of the claims made by the plaintiffs.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a suit seeking declaration and injunction regarding a 15 feet cart track disputed by the respondents. The respondents applied for a commissioner to record the cart track, and the court granted this application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment of a commissioner was necessary to assess the plaintiffs' claim regarding the cart track, ruling that there was no error in the trial court's decision.
Issues: Whether the appointment of a commissioner was warranted considering the plaintiffs admitted alterations to the pathway.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that it was essential for accurate adjudication to appoint a commissioner to document the physical characteristics of the alleged cart track.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R D E R
The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 11.12.2023 in I.A.No.1 of 2023 in OS No.194 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode.
2. The petitioners are plaintiffs and respondents are respondents 1 and
3 in OS.No.194 of 2022 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. The petitioners/plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration, mandatory inunction and permanent injunction. Pending suit, the respondents 1 and 3 have filed an application in IA No.1 of 2023 for appointing an advocate commissioner to note down the ABCDE disputed area and the extent of pathway as claimed by the petitioners/plaintiffs. The learned judge, by order dated 11.12.2023, had allowed the application. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have filed the present civil revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners themselves have admitted the alternation of the pathway. Under such circumstances, the commissioner need not be appointed. Hence seeking to allow the Revision.
4. On a perusal of the plaint, it is noticed that the plaintiffs sought for declaration of the right of easement to use and enjoy the 15 feet width suit cart track which is shown the rough plan appended with the plaint marking ABCDE in red colour to reach their land in S.No.230/1B from north south panchayat road in S.No.225 of Vattur village, besides sought the relief of mandatory injunction to remove the vegetation in all along the 15 feet width suit cart track which was marked as ABCDE in the rough plan appended with plaint and also for permanent injunction.
5. Under these circumstances, to note down the alleged 15 feet cart track, it is necessary for the court to appoint a commissioner to adjudicate the claim of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial court rightly appointed the advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the alleged 15 feet cart track shown in the rough land appended with the plaint. I find no infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in the civil revision petition. Hence, the civil revision petition is Dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, CMP No.3538 of 2024 is closed.
07.03.2024 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No mrn To The Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode V .SIVAGNANAM, J.
(mrn)
07.03.2024
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
