ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order and decreetal order dated 14.08.2020 made in I.A.No.96 of 2019 in O.S.No.77 of

2019 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants before the Court below.

The respondent who is the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.77 of 2019 under Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C., seeking the following prayers :

i) To declare that the plaintiff is the owner of the A schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

ii) To measure the extent of lands in the A, B and C schedule property with the help of a Surveyor.

iii) To direct the 1st petitioner / 1st defendant to demolish the house constructed in the A schedule property, measuring about 20 feet from North to South and 10 feet from East to West, if he fails to do the same, to demolish the same with the direction of the Court.

iv) and to direct the 2nd petitioner / 2nd defendant to remove the sand, bricks and other construction materials from the Southern side of the A schedule property measuring about 2.5 cents, if he fails to do the same, to remove the same with the direction of the Court.

3. That apart, the respondent filed I.A.No.96 of 2019 seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property with the help of a Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer and to file a report along with the sketch.

4. The case of the respondent is that the A schedule property 5 cents was purchased by his father on 27.07.1980 and he was in enjoyment of the same. Subsequently, his father and sister had settled the said property in favour of him on 09.04.2015. Thereafter, his father had encroached the Government Poramboke Land in New S.No.28/1 and Old S.No.45/1 which is on the western of the A schedule property and had been enjoying the same. After it was settled in favour of the respondent, he had been in enjoyment of the same and his wife had been paying the fine amount. Hence, the respondent submitted that the petitioners have no right to claim title over the A schedule property and said poramboke land.

5. It is the further case of the respondent that on 18.10.2004, the 1st petitioner had purchased B schedule property 2.5 cents on the Eastern side of the A schedule property from one Thangaraj. On the same day, the 2nd petitioner had purchased C schedule property 2.5 cents on the Eastern side of the B schedule property from the same Thangaraj. Subsequently, 1st petitioner started to built a house in the A schedule property and thereafter both the petitioners planned to encroach the A schedule property and tried to get Patta in the month of February 2019. When it came to the knowledge of the respondent, he given a complaint before the authorities concerned and prevented the same. Since the petitioners were continuously trying to encroach the said land, the respondent filed an application for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property.

6. Denying the averments made in the above application, the petitioners filed a counter affidavit stating that the respondent has not stated any reasonable cause for allowing his petition, hence his petition is not sustainable. It is also stated that the respondent has to claim his right only by way of documents and he should not seek for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence for his case. It is further stated that originally, the persons namely Jayarama Goundar and Kamalakannan who sold the property had only 30 cents in the said Survey numbers, but they occupied more than their rights 40 cents in the same. Hence, if the Court appoints an Advocate Commissioner, all the lands in the said place i.e. from the house of the respondent till the lands of the Raji and Pasumalai, to be measured by the Advocate Commissioner to find a solution in this case, otherwise, the