IN THE HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.R.P.NO.970 OF 2023
Between:
Dasari Govardhanamma and others
... Petitioners
And
Smt Patnam Ramulamma and others
... Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 11.04.2023
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : yes
may be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : yes
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : yes
_________________
SUREPALLI NANDA, J
SN,J
2
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.NO.970 OF 2023
% 11.04.2023
Between:
# Dasari Govardhanamma and others
..... Petitioners
And
$ Smt Patnam Ramulamma and others
.....Respondents
< Gist:
> Head Note:
! Counsel for the Petitioners : Mrs Srilekha Pujari
^ Counsel for the Respondents:
? Cases Referred:
SN,J
3
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
C.R.P.NO.970 OF 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the propriety and legality of the order dated 20.01.2022 in I.A.No.112 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Gadwal.
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the Lower Court.
3. The defendants filed I.A.No.112 of 2021, under Order 26 Rule 1 and 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for demarcating boundaries and noting the physical features of the plaint schedule property with the help of Revenue Inspector of Gadwal (Rural) and Deputy Inspector of Survey (Jogulamba) Gadwal District. The plea taken in that petition is that the extent of plaint schedule land as per the pattedar passbooks of the plaintiffs varies with the extent shown in the plaint schedule and as such the identity of the suit land is in dispute SN,J 4 and the plaintiff wrongly showed boundaries in the plaint schedule and so it is necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of the boundaries of the plaint schedule land and to note down the physical features of the lands.
4. The plaintiffs in their counter vehemently opposed the plea for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. They contended that the suit is filed for bare injunction and the issue in the suit would be whether as on the date of filing of the suit they were in possession of the suit land or not and that the boundaries as shown in the plaint schedule are the boundaries that were in existence as on the date of filing of the suit and so the question of demarcation of boundaries by surveyor does not arise. They also contend that the plaint schedule land was already surveyed and demarcated in the presence of both the parties and that undisputedly the suit land is agricultural land and so there is no need for noting down the physical features of the land.
5. The lower Court after considering the material on record came to the conclusion, that there is no variation in the extent of land between the pattedar passbooks and the plaint SN,J 5 schedule and survey of the subject land having already been conducted by Mandal Surveyor and having regard to the scope of the suit, the question whether the plaintiffs were in possession of the land as on the date of suit can be decided by considering the oral and documentary evidence to be adduced by both the parties and that therefore, there is no need for appointment of Advocate Commissioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
PERUSED THE RECORD DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
7. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction simplicitor claiming that they were in possession and enjoyment of Ac.02.39 gts in Survey Nos.98/1/1, 98/3/1, 98/1/2, 98/1/3, 98/33, 98/1/4, and 98/34 situated in Yenkampeta Village, Gadwal Mandal of Jogulamba Gadwal District within the boundaries as shown in the plaint schedule in the suit. It is settled position of law that in a suit for bare injunction, the issue that would arise mainly for consideration is whether as on the date of the suit the plaintiffs were in possession of the SN,J 6 suit land, but the question of title of the plaintiffs can be gone into incidentally. An advocate Commissioner can be appointed if there is dispute as to the identity of the suit land and in the present case the only contention of the defendants is that there is variation between the passbooks and the plaint schedule in respect of the extent of suit land. For the purpose of knowing the identity of the land, it is only the description of the land as given in the plaint schedule that has to be looked into, but not the pattadar passbooks which are only evidential documents, however, the lower Curt in its order clearly observed that there is no variation in the extent of land between the pattadar passbooks and the plaint schedule.
8. Importantly, prior to the filing of the suit, survey was conducted by the Mandal Surveyor vide Ex.R.1 - panchanama dated 29.12.2020 and the defendants 2 and 5 signed the panchanama as mediators. The lower Court rightly observed that when there is already survey conducted by the Mandal Surveyor, Gadwal and boundaries were fixed on the basis of Tippon in the presence of defendants 2 and 5, there is no necessity for appointment of Advocate Commissioner for SN,J 7 demarcating the boundaries and noting the physical features of the suit land.
9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no impropriety, illegality or irregularity committed by the lower Court in passing the impugned order dated 20.01.2022 in I.A.No.112 of 2021 in O.S.No.32 of 2021 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Gadwal and so this Court does not find any merit in the civil revision petition and accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
_________________ SUREPALLI NANDA, J Date: 11.04.2023 Note: L.R. copy to be marked b/o Kvrm