SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 15860

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice S. SOUNTHAR
SUBRAMANI – Appellant
Versus
VELUMANI – Respondent



##PAGE1##

C.R.P.No.518 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :05.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

C.R.P.No.518 of 2024

and C.M.P.No.2425 of 2024

Subramamni

... Petitioner

vs.

Velumani

... Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India, praying to set aside the fair and final order dated

29.09.2023 made in I.A.No.141 of 2023 in O.S.No.101 of 2014 on the file

of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam and to allow the Civil

Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.P.Ruban Chakravarthy

for S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

For Respondent :Mr.R.Agilesh

for M/s.T.Dhanasekaran

O R D E R

The Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by

the trial Court, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking an

appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 01:16:19 pm )

##PAGE2##

C.R.P.No.518 of 2024

2. The petitioner herein filed a suit seeking declaration of title

regarding suit ‘B’ schedule property and for consequential injunction

restraining the respondent/defendant from interfering with the possession.

The petitioner also sought for mandatory injunction to remove the

construction put up by the respondent in the suit ‘C’ schedule property and

recovery of vacant possession thereof.

3. Pending suit, the petitioner filed an application seeking

appointment of Advocate Commissioner, the said application was dismissed

by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal

before this Court in CRP.No.2057 of 2018 and the said revision was

allowed by this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the Advocate

Commissioner visited the property and the property could not be measured

as the revenue documents stood in some other persons name with new Sub

Division numbers. Thereafter, the petitioner filed amendment application to

correct the discrepancy in survey number. Based on the said amendment,

the petitioner filed another application seeking appointment of Advocate

Commissioner to measure the property with the help of Surveyor and to note

down the physical features and the said application was dismissed by the

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 01:16:19 pm )

##PAGE3##

C.R.P.No.518 of 2024

trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come before this

Court.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that

the similar application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was

allowed by this Court earlier and the Advocate Commissioner could not

execute the warrant as there were discrepancy in survey numbers. Now the

petitioner has filed the petition giving details of the petitioner’s property and

the property sold to the defendant and therefore, the Advocate

Commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features.

5. It is seen from the pleadings that the suit ‘A’ schedule property

was originally purchased by the petitioner from one Ganesan under

Document No.1, dated 27.02.1991. Later the portion of the ‘A’ schedule

property was sold to the defendant under document dated 06.06.1996.

6. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he retained property on

immediate north of road and only property on the further north with

east-west measurement of 66 feet and north-south measurement of 70 feet

was sold to the defendant. It is further stated that the defendant entered

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 01:16:19 pm )

##PAGE4##

C.R.P.No.518 of 2024

portion of the property retained by the plaintiff and put up construction and

the same was shown separately. In the draft plan produced by the plaintiff,

the property allegedly sold by him has been shown as “ABEF” which lies on

north portion. The property alleged retained by plaintiff has been shown as

“ABCD”. The encroached property has been shown as “AGHD” and the

same is situated on the north of ‘CD’ line. The property allegedly

encroached by the defendant is shown asAGHD’, which is a portion of

‘ABCD’.

7

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top