1. Civil revision against appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to locate suit property and ascertain if it forms part of disputed land. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Telangana) 260
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J.
Guduru Sathi Reddy - Petitioner
Versus
J. Sudhakar Reddy - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.396 of 2025
Decided On : 18-03-2026
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: M.V. Hanumantha Rao
Respondent Counsel: Srinivas Polavarapu
Advocate Appeared:
Petitioner Counsel: M.V. Hanumantha Rao
Respondent Counsel: Srinivas Polavarapu
An Advocate Commissioner can be appointed in a suit for perpetual injunction to identify suit property and record physical features when boundaries and identity are disputed, provided the Commissioner is restricted from making observations regarding the actual possession of the property.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXVI Rule 9 and Section 75 - Suit for perpetual injunction - Appointment of Advocate Commissioner - Dispute regarding identity and boundaries of suit property - Whether appointment is permissible in injunction suits - In a suit for perpetual injunction, an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to investigate and record physical features of the land when there is a dispute about identity, location, description, and boundaries, provided the Commissioner is directed not to make any observations regarding the possession of the property. (Paras 5, 16, 17)
(B) Burden of proof and evidence - In a suit for perpetual injunction, while the plaintiff must establish possession, the defendant is entitled to disprove the case by rebutting the evidence on record. Appointment of a Commissioner may be necessary to demonstrate whether the suit property overlaps with land claimed by the defendant or to establish its identity as per title deeds. (Para 18)
Facts of the case:
In a suit filed for perpetual injunction claiming rights over a specific extent of land, the defendant sought the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the suit land forms part of a larger extent of land claimed by the defendant. The trial court allowed the appointment to record physical features with the assistance of a surveyor, specifically directing the Commissioner not to make observations regarding possession. The plaintiff contested this, arguing that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish identity and possession, and such an appointment is unnecessary.
Findings of Court:
The trial court correctly held that a dispute over the identity and boundaries of the land justifies the appointment of a Commissioner. The fact that a temporary injunction was granted does not conclusively establish title or possession for the purpose of the final adjudication of the suit.
Issues: Whether an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to locate and identify the suit schedule property in a suit for perpetual injunction when the identity and boundaries are in dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that to ascertain the truth on the ground and resolve overlapping claims of land, the appointment of a Commissioner to note physical features and boundaries is permissible and necessary, as it allows the defendant to rebut the plaintiff's evidence regarding the identity of the property, provided the scope is limited to physical features and excludes findings on possession.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argued Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed in a perpetual injunction suit; respondent argued it is necessary due to identity dispute. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Even in a perpetual injunction suit, an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to note physical features and investigate identity or boundary disputes. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. In a perpetual injunction suit, an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed when there is a dispute regarding the identity or boundaries of the property. (Para 16 , 17 )
5. Civil Revision Petition dismissed; order appointing Advocate Commissioner to investigate physical features of the suit land confirmed. (Para 19 , 20 )
6. Can an Advocate Commissioner be appointed in a suit for perpetual injunction?
Yes, even in a perpetual injunction suit, an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to note physical features and investigate identity or boundary disputes, but not to determine possession. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 )
7. What is the scope of an Advocate Commissioner's appointment in an injunction suit?
The Commissioner can investigate and record physical features of the suit land with surveyor assistance, but must not make any observation regarding possession of the property. (Para 5 , 16 )
8. Does confirmation of temporary injunction bar appointment of a Commissioner?
No, a grant of temporary injunction does not confirm title or possession; the main suit is yet to be adjudicated, and a Commissioner may still be needed for identity disputes. (Para 5 )
9. Is a separate suit required for identifying disputed land in an injunction case?
No, a separate declaratory suit is not necessary; an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for identification can be filed within the perpetual injunction suit itself. (Para 6 , 17 )
ORDER :
Renuka Yara, J.
Heard Sri M. V. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Polavarapu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.
2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/respondent/plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2025 in I.A.No.437 of 2024 in O.S.No.13 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, (‘trial Court’), wherein a petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 75 of CPC, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit schedule property and ascertain whether the suit land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas forms part of land admeasuring Ac.1-34 guntas in Survey No.332 of Thumukunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, has been allowed by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to carry out necessary investigation except for ascertaining the possession of said property.
Background of facts:
3. The respondent/defendant herein filed a petition under Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain whether the suit land admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas forms part of land admeasuring Ac.1-34 guntas in Survey No.332 of Tumukunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal, by taking assistance of a Mandal Surveyor. According to the respondent, the suit is filed seeking permanent injunction claiming rights over land and admeasuring Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey No.332 of Tumukunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal. The petitioner claims to have purchased the said land under a sale deed bearing document bearing No.2977 of 1996. While so, the respondent is claiming rights in land admeasuring Ac.1-10 guntas in Survey No.332 out of Ac.1-34 guntas of Tumkuntha Village, Shamirpet Mandal, under a gift settlement deed bearing document No.9025 of 1990 from the principal vendor G. Nagireddy. According to the respondent, the suit schedule property is part and parcel of the land admeasuring Ac.1-10 guntas settled in favour of G. Nagireddy, who is brother of the petitioner. There is admission of P.W.1 that the south side of the suit schedule property belongs to their father G.Venkat Reddy in Survey No.332. Respondent's vendor G. Nagireddy acquired the property from his father G. Venkat Reddy in family partition. The respondent developed the property along with land in Survey No.286 by converting it into plots by laying internal roads in the year 2017. Some of the purchasers have constructed the houses and are living in their respective plots. Therefore, ownership and possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property is denied. The petitioner obtained interim injunction and making attempts to block the road leading to Reddy Colony. The identity of the suit schedule land is in dispute. For the purpose of locating the suit schedule property and to ascertain whether it forms part of Ac.1-10 guntas claimed by the respondent, there is a need for appointment of Advocate Commissioner as such the respondent filed I.A. under revision.
4. The petitioner herein filed counter-affidavit before the trial Court claiming that the main suit is filed seeking perpetual injunction with respect to agricultural dry land administering Ac.0-20 guntas in Survey No.332 of Tumukunta Village, Shamirpet Mandal. In said suit, I.A.No.45 of 2018 was filed seeking ad interim injunction and the same was allowed. The respondent preferred C.M.A.No.13 of 2018 before the XI Additional District Judge at Medchal and the said C.M.A. was dismissed on 21.12.2021, confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. The petitioner claims to be in possession under valid title. As such, denied any need for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Further, it is urged that the respondent has no locus to seek location of his land in a suit filed seeking injunction simpliciter without paying Court fee.
5. Upon considering the case of both the respective parties, the learned trial Court concluded that
