Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 43380
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T.V. Thamilselvi, J
Krishnaveni – Appellant
Versus
Poovathal – Respondent
CMP No.11562 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V.G. Suresh Kumar
An Advocate Commissioner appointed by a court is empowered to note physical features and measure properties to assist the court but lacks legal authority to observe or determine the issue of possession of the suit property.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order of the trial court appointing an Advocate Commissioner to determine possession of the suit property. The court held that an Advocate Commissioner's mandate is limited to noting physical features and measuring property, and they are not permitted to opine on or observe possession, which is a matter for evidence. The core issue was whether an Advocate Commissioner can be tasked with identifying possession of property. The court reiterated that relying on a Commissioner's report for possession is impermissible and clarified that the Commissioner's role is strictly confined to investigating physical features. The civil revision petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to restrict the Commissioner's investigation to physical measurements and to expedite the trial of the suit within four months, considering the advanced age of the plaintiff.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to the appointment of an advocate commissioner who has been directed to report on possession. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORDER
Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned trial Judge in I.A.No.2 of
2025 in O.S.No.1434 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore, the defendant has preferred this Revision.
2. Since no adverse orders are going to be passed in the Revision, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/
plaintiff filed I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.1434 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, by which the plaintiff wanted to get the report with regard to her possession over the suit property and as such, the same is not permissible under law. Claiming that the Advocate Commissioner is not entitled to make observation with regard to the possession of the property, the defendant objects the application. However, the Trial Court has allowed the said application and hence the defendant prays for setting aside the same.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. On a perusal of the order in I.A.No.2 of 2025 in O.S.No.1434 of 2017 reflects that the plaintiff has filed the application seeking to visit the property with the help of Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor. The defendant also contested the case stating that they are also having right over the property based upon the Settlement Deed executed by her husband. However, the said application was allowed by the trial Judge.
6. While the extent of subject land is under dispute, relief of declaration is necessary and therefore the trial Court directed the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property in respect of Survey No.36/1C and to submit his report. However, there is no direction issued to the Advocate Commissioner to make observation with regard to possession of the property.
7. Nevertheless the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that while granting such appointment of the Advocate Commissioner, the trial Court has observed that the possession also to be noted by the Commissioner and the same is not permissible under law.
8. To that effect, it is made clear that as on date the plaintiff is aged 82 years and to avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, the Advocate Commissioner is permitted to note down the physical features and measure the property in respect of Survey No.36/1C and not to make any observation with regard to the possession of the property, as early as possible.
9. On receipt of such report from the Advocate Commissioner, considering the age of the plaintiff who is 82 years, the trial Court viz., the III Additional Subordinate Court, Coimbatore is directed to dispose of the suit O.S.No.1434 of 2017, within a period of four months thereafter.
10. With the above direction, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous Petition is closed.
