2026:MHC:247 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS ORDER RESERVED ON : 12 / 11 / 2025 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 23 / 01 / 2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.413 OF 2022 AND CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.2120 OF 2022

1. Thavamani, 2. Selvamani, Both the Petitioners are residing at Erikodipatti Village, Ilaligam Post, Dharmapuri Taluk and District. ... Petitioners /

Petitioners /

Plaintiffs Versus T. Jayamani Erikodipatti Village, Ilaligam Post, Dharmapuri Taluk and District. ... Respondent /

Respondent /

Defendant PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the fair and decreetal Order dated September 4, 2021 passed in I.A.No.255 of 2020 in O.S. No.148 of 2014 by the learned District Munsif, Dharmapuri and allow the said Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioners.

For Petitioners : Mr.A.Arun Anbumani For Respondent : Notice Served – No appearance

O R D E R

The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.255 of 2020 in O.S. No.148 of

2014, under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of “the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908” (“CPC” for short) praying to order for the Advocate Commissioner's revisit to the suit schedule property and to measure the suit schedule property with the help of surveyor with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The same was dismissed by 'the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri' ['Trial Court'] vide Order dated September 4, 2021. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the same and allow the Interlocutory Application.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that an extent of 84 cents in S.No.391/1 in Erikodipatti Village and another extent of property in S.No.390/2, was originally owned by Marimuthuammal W/o. Ramasamy. Original owner Marimuthuammal died leaving behind her daughter Pachiammal. The said Pachiammal married one Marimuthu, out of their wedlock, no child was born. So, the said Marimuthu married one nd Kaveriammal as 2 wife through whom the plaintiffs Mr.Thavamani and Mr.Selvamani were born. The father of the plaintiffs Mr.Marimuthu died st in the year 2006 and his 1 wife Pachiammal also died in the year 2013. At this stage, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased. The original owner Pachiammal during her life time executed a Sale Deed in respect of an extent of 10 cents in S.No.391/1b in the year 1998 to one Devarajan. Thereafter, the said Pachiammal executed another sale deed in favour of the defendant for an extent of 5 cents in the same survey number. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant has encroached the suit schedule property beyond the 5 cents of land sold to him. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No.148 of 2014 before the Trial Court seeking for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction against the defendant in respect of the Suit schedule mentioned property.

4. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with and Section 151 of CPC, seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property along with the help of surveyor in I.A.No.1426 of 2017 and the same was allowed vide order dated February 22, 2018. As per the aforesaid order of the Trial Court, the Advocate commissioner inspected the suit schedule property along with the help of surveyor and Village Administrative Officer and filed his reports along with plan which were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 wherein there is no information about the encroachment made by the defendant. After commencement of the Trial, the Interlocutory application in I.A. No.254 of 2020 filed by the plaintiffs for condonation of delay in filing the objections to the said report was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-, the Interlocut