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 as ‘AGHD’, which is a portion of
‘ABCD’.
7
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.