Madras High Court
S.Ramesh vs L.Subramaniam on 29 September, 2021
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 29.09.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
CRP. (PD) No.3708 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.24364 of 2019
S.Ramesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
L.Subramaniam ... Respondent
Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 Constitution of India to
set aside the docket order dated 07.08.2019 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in
O.S.No.227 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif,
Tirupattur, Vellore District, allow the said I.A., filed by the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Arun
For Respondent : Mr.R.Ramesh
***
O RD E R
This petition is filed challenging the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in
O.S.No.227 of 2018 by the learned Principal District Munsif Court, Tirupattur,
Vellore District on 07.08.2019.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner filed a
suit in O.S.No.227 of 2018 against the respondent herein, seeking the relief of
''directing the defendant, his men agents and servants not to interfere with the
plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over the "A" schedule property
by obstructing the construction made by the plaintiff therein.'' It is further the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
purchased the property from his vendor on 12.03.2014. His vendor's title deed
is a sale deed dated 16.05.1967. The petitioner is the possession and enjoyment
of the property as per his registered sale deed; whereas the respondent's wife
purchased the property on 11.09.1987 with specific extent and measurement.
On 25.04.2011, the respondent's wife executed settlement deed in favour of the
respondent. It is submitted that the sale deed in favour of the respondent’s wife
confines only to the extent of 3003 sq.ft. When the respondent’s wife executed
settlement in favour of her husband on 25.04.2011, the extent of the property is
shown as 3171 ½ sq.ft. Taking advantage of this self-created document, with
regard to extent of the property, the respondent tried to encroach upon the
portion of land which was left behind by the vendor of the petitioner and
encroached into the property of the petitioner. The petitioner was making
construction in his own property and that was attempted to be obstructed.
Therefore, the suit was filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
3. It is further submitted that the petitioner filed I.A.No.1078 of 2018 for
grant of temporary injunction. Initially, the petitioner was granted interim
injunction. When the matter was taken up for final disposal, the Court observed
that the petitioner had not taken any steps to appoint an advocate commissioner
to prove the measurements of the property and I.A.No.1078 of 2018 came to be
dismissed. Then, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2 of 2019 for appointment of the
Advocate commissioner to inspect the suit properties covered under sale deeds
dated 16.05.1967, 16.04.1987, 11.09.1987 and 12.03.2014 and the revenue
records prior to the year 2011 to ascertain the exact boundaries with the help of
the Village Administrative Officer, measure the same, to take photos, and file a
detailed report along with Surveyor plan. This petition was opposed by the
respondent. The learned trial Judge has dismissed the petition. Against the said
dismissal order, this Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
in possession and enjoyment of the property within the extent of property
purchased by him. Only when the respondent tried to interfere with the
construction in his property, the suit came to be filed. The Commissioner was
sought to be appointed as per observation made by the Court below in
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
I.A.No.1078 of 2018. However, this application came to be dismissed. Unless
the Advocate commissioner is appointed and measure the property along with
the surveyor and on the basis of the title deeds of both parties and revenue
records, the lis between the parties could not be adjudicated correctly.
Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned trial judge and
allow the I.A. seeking for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the suit is filed
for bare injunction and appointment of Advocate commissioner is not
necessary. This application is sought to be filed only for the purpose of
collecting evidence, which is impermissible in law. He also submitted that there
were already previous proceedings between the respondent and vendors of the
plaintiff in a suit, which was decreed. Against the judgment and decree passed
in the suit, an appeal was preferred before the learned Sub Judge, Tirupattur, in
A.S.No.32 of 2011, which was allowed. In view of the previous proceedings,
the petitioner cannot seek to appointment of an advocate commissioner.
6. Considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for either side
and perused the materials available on record.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
7.As narrated above, issue between the parties is with regard to the
boundaries of the properties of both the parties. The petitioner claims that he is
making construction in his own property purchased through sale on 12.03.2014
and only because the respondent tried to interfere with his construction and
enjoyment of the property, the suit came to be filed. As rightly pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is variation in the extent of property
purchased by the respondent’s wife through sale deed dated 11.09.1987 and
settled in favour of her husband, who is the respondent herein. In the sale deed
dated 25.04.2011 executed in favour of the wife of the respondent, the extent of
the property was shown as 3003 sq.ft. However, in the settlement deed
executed by the respondent's wife in favour of the respondent, the extent of
property was mentioned as 3171 ½ sq.ft. This result is the this suit between the
parties. On the basis of measurements given in the settlement deed dated
25.04.2011, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
respondent has tried to encroach upon the property of the petitioner. In the
considered view of this Court, on the facts and circumstances of the case now
put forth by the parties, nature of the claim, only if the Advocate Commissioner
inspects the properties of both parties, measure the same with the help of the
Surveyor and revenue records and the title deeds along with Village
Administrative Officer, the issue can be adjudicated effectively and correctly.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
Otherwise, there would be no clarity in regard to the extents of the respective
properties of the parties and their possession thereof. The advocate
commissioner's inspection and measuring the properties with the help of the
surveyor, would certainly help the Court to decide the lis between the parties
and avoid unnecessary oral and documentary evidence. With regard to other
submissions raised by both the parties like previous litigation in A.S.No.32 of
2011, etc., these issues can be considered only at the time of trial and it cannot
be considered now. Therefore, this Court sets aside the order of the learned trial
Judge in dismissing the petition filed for appointment of Advocate
commissioner and accordingly, the I.A. is allowed learned trial Judge is
directed to appoint the Advocate commissioner with direction to inspect the
suit property along with Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor to
measure the properties of both parties as per their title deeds specifically,
mentioned in the Commission petition and revenue records take photographs
and file his report.
8. With the above direction this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
29.09.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
vsn
Copy To:
The Principal District Munsif,
Tirupattur, Vellore District
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN. J.,
vsn
CRP. (PD) No.3708 of 2019
and C.M.P.No.24364 of 2019
29.09.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P. (PD) No. 3708 of 2019
http://www.judis.nic.in
