The Hon’ble Smt. Justice Renuka Yara Civil Revision Petition No.3156 of 2024

Order:

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Kalwakurthy in I.A.No.1381 of 2021 in I.A.No.1100 of 2021 in O.S.No.436 of 2021, dated 16.04.2024, wherein, petition filed under Order 26, Rule 9 r/w 151 of CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to investigate the physical features of the suit schedule land within the limits of Ulapara Village, Vongur Mandal, has been dismissed. .

2. Heard Sri T.L.Krishna Prasad, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.3, Sri K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff and Sri Sangem Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/defendant No.1.

3. The background facts giving rise to the filing of the revision petition are that respondent No.1 filed suit in O.S.No.436 of 2021 before the learned Trial Court seeking permanent injunction with respect to suit schedule property consisting of agricultural land in Sy.No.60/EE1 to an extent of Ac.2.00 Gts., situated in Ulpara Village, Vongur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District appended on the East by Vadike (Rain water channel), West: Land of J. Bondaiah, North: Land of P. Krishna Reddy and South: 20 ft. Bandla Bata (Cart way). In said suit, I.A.No.1100 of 2021 was filed seeking temporary injunction. In said I.A, the present I.A under revision is filed by the respondent No.1 with prayer as follows:

“For all the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble court be pleased to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for making investigation the physical features of the suit schedule land situated within the limits of Ulpara (v), Vongur Mandal and to pass order or orders as the Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of case and in the interest of justice.”

4. The case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property having purchased it under registered sale deed document No.10509 of 2019, dated 16.09.2019. Further, her vendors have purchased the land under registered sale deed document No.2862 of 2016, dated 02.03.2016. The respondent No.1 claims to be in possession of the suit schedule property having developed it, having made it fertile and cultivating the same through her GPA holder-cum-father by raising kandi chenu. The respondent No.1 claims that petitioner and respondent No.2 herein are influential persons having muscle power and they have threatened to occupy the suit schedule property forcibly. Therefore, vexed with threat of dispossession, the suit for perpetual injunction is filed.

5. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 is claiming to have purchased the suit schedule land from Muddamalla Ramulamma and respondent No.2 in the year 2019 who in turn purchased the land from Jajala Bondaiah in the year 2016. According to the petitioner, though registered sale deeds are executed, the vendors of respondent No.1 were not in possession of the suit schedule land and therefore, said land was not delivered to respondent No.1. The pleadings of respondent No.1 about raising kandi chenu is false. There is a ridge in land bearing Sy.No.60 running from North to South with four borewells with two borewells in working condition and paddy crop is raised. Therefore, in order to ascertain the physical features, the petition is filed to note down the physical features of land in Sy.No.60/EE1 to an extent of Ac.2.00Gts. of Ulpara Village, Vongur Mandal.

6. Having considered the case of both parties, the learned Trial Court held that in a suit for injunction, an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to localize or note down physical features of the suit schedule property which amounts to collection of evidence. It is held that the petitioner/defendant No.3 did not plead in the written statement about physical features of the suit land and other lands, therefore, allowing the petition to demarca