Madras High Court
Pichai vs P.Pandu on 9 July, 2021
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
and
CMP.No.600 of 2019
[Through Video Conferencing]
Pichai ...Petitioner/ Plaintiff
Vs
1. P.Pandu
2. Lalitha ... Respondents/Defendants
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India seeking to set aside the Fair and Decretal order passed in I.A.No.136
of 2018 in O.S.No.89 of 2017 dated 03.10.2018 on the file of District Munsif,
Katpadi, Vellore District.
For Petitioner : Mr.Udaykumar
For R-1 : Mr.D.Rajagopal
For R-2 : Ms.Preethi S.Arasu
*****
ORDER
The plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 2017 pending on the file of the District
Munsif Court at Katpadi in Vellore District is the revision petitioner herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
2.The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants
from interfering his peaceful possession.
3.The learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr.Udayakumar pointed out the
Schedule of the property mentioned in the plaint. In the Schedule, it had been
mentioned that the property is in Survey No.177/2L and measures 1.09.0 hctrs
equivalent to 2.69 acres. The boundaries are also been given in the Schedule.
According to the Schedule, properties are to the East of the lands of Palani,
Pandu Mandiri, Varada Mandiri and Arumugam and to the West of the lands of
Rajendran, Arumugam, Krishnan and Palani and to the North of the Ooadai
and to the South of the lands of Arumugam, Rajendran and Babu.
4.In the cause of action, it had been claimed that the plaintiff had
purchased the property on 25.04.2016 and that for the past one month prior to
the institution of the suit, the defendants have been interfering with possession
and giving trouble to the plaintiff. This also necessitated the plaintiff to give a
complaint to the police station.
5.It was also stated that two days prior to the institution of the suit, the
defendants threatened that they would throw the plaintiff out of the suit
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
6.On service of suit summons, the defendants had entered appearance.
They filed their independent written statements. The 1st defendant stated that
there was no need for the said 1st defendant to interfere with the property of the
plaintiff and that the allegations mentioned are only for the purpose of filing of
the suit and therefore the suit has to be dismissed. It was also pointed out that
the description of the property is wrong.
7.The 2nd defendant also filed a written statement. In the written
statement they clarified that particular aspect which was mentioned by the 1st
defendant in more specific terms and stated that the description of the
plaintiff's property has been wrongly given. It had been stated that the
boundaries of the plaintiff's property are that, the plaintiff's property is to the
East of the lands of Palani, to the West of the lands of Arumugam and Sumathi,
to the South of Oodai and to the North of the lands of Rajendran.
8.Claiming that the Southern and the Northern boundaries had been
differently given by the 2nd defendant in the written statement, the plaintiff
filed I.A.No.136 of 2018 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner
to measure the suit property with the help of a Surveyor and to fix the
boundaries of the plaintiff's property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
9.This application came up for consideration before the District Munsif
at Katpadi and by Order dated 03.10.2018 the said application was dismissed.
10.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein had raised
serious grievances over the order. According to him, when the 2nd defendant
had specifically mentioned that the boundaries of the plaintiff's property are
not correct then naturally there is an obligation on the plaintiff to examine
whether the boundaries as given in the plaint are right or wrong and for that
purpose appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would not cause any
prejudice or harm to any of the parties to the suit.
11.The learned counsel stated that by appointment of an Advocate
Commissioner, the property of the plaintiff would be surveyed and would
enable a just conclusion to be reached.
12.The learned counsel for the 1st respondent however stated that the
application has been filed only to fish out facts and that therefore appointment
of an Advocate Commissioner is not required.
13.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has categorically stated
that the 2nd respondent/2nd defendant property has no connection with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
property of the plaintiff and there is no necessity for the 2nd respondent/2nd
defendant to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff herein.
14.After hearing the learned counsels and also on perusal of the orders, I
find no reason to interfere with the order for consideration.
15.The learned Munsif had pointed out that the plaintiff has to establish
possession and cannot expand the scope of the suit by seeking appointment of
an Advocate Commissioner and thereby fixing the boundaries of his property.
16.That is an exercise the plaintiff can very well undertake independent
of filing a suit for injunction. He could very well approach the Revenue
Authorities to determine his boundaries. The Court cannot be used as a
platform for that particular aspect. The only issue now before the Court is
whether one month prior to the institution of the suit the defendants had
attempted to encroach on the property and create problem to the plaintiff and
whether two days before the institution of the suit, the defendants had
threatened the plaintiff that they would throw him out of his own property.
These are issues which have to be decided based on oral evidence adduced at
the time of trial.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
17.The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied on a Judgment of this
Court reported in 2005 (3) MLJ 525 ( Sivagurunathan Vs.Ramalingam and
Others).
18.A learned Single Judge of this Court thought it necessary to appoint
an Advocate Commissioner particularly when there was a dispute with respect
to the nature of the property over which the plaintiff claims injunction. That
was a case where the plaintiff sought injunction for a property measuring
about 22 cents. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff was entitled to only 11
cents of land. There was a material dispute with respect to the extent and
therefore appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was ordered.
19.Here there is no dispute about the area of the plaintiff's property. The
defendants have categorically stated that they have nothing to do with the
property of the plaintiff and their property has no connection with the
plaintiff's property and they have no necessity to interfere with the possession
of the plaintiff.
20.The suit itself is therefore not necessary and the plaintiff, if he had
doubts about the boundaries of his own property should approach the Revenue
Authorities and seek to survey the land and fix the boundaries and mark out his
own property. The Judgment referred is not applicable to the facts of the case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
21.The revision is dismissed.
22.It is only advisable that the parties to go back to the trial Court. Since
the suit is of the year 2017, whenever the matter is placed in the Special List,
the learned District Munsif at Katpadi may conduct the trial on a day to day
basis and even if adjournments are sought, the learned District Munsif may
grant only three working days in between any two adjournments and also
refuse to grant more than two adjournments for the same reason.
23.This would naturally indicate that the plaintiff and the defendants
would be under strict obligation to be ready and participate in the trial, I am
confident that the suit itself would be disposed of within a reasonable period of
time.
24.With the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. No order as
to costs.
09.07.2021
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ssi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
ssi
To
1.The District Munsif, Katpadi, Vellore District.
CRP(PD)No.66 of 2019
09.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
