Madras High Court
Thillainayagam vs Dhakshnamurthy on 23 November, 2023
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
C.M.A.No.172 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.11.2023
CORAM:
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.M.A.No.172 of 2022
and C.M.P.No.1333 of 2022
Thillainayagam ... Appellant
Vs.
Dhakshnamurthy ... Respondent
PRAYER:This Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.11 of 2017 dated
30.08.2019 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore,
setting aside and remanding the well-considered judgment and decree made
in O.S.No.642 of 2005 dated 09.08.2016 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif, Cuddalore.
For appellant : Ms.J.Deepika
for Mr.D.Ravichander
For respondent : Mr.T.V.Sai Srujan
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.No.172 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.642 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court,
Cuddalore, is the appellant. A suit was laid for declaration of plaintiff's title
and for recovery of about 50 sq.ft. from the defendant. The allegation is that
the defendant had encroached the said area which belonged to the plaintiff.
The defendant resisted the suit and came up with his counter claim, wherein,
he alleges that the plaintiff has encroached into certain area belonging to
him. The trial Court appointed a Commissioner and he had filed his reports
along with a plan. After trial, the Court came to the conclusion that the
plaintiff had not discharged his burden and dismissed the suit. So far as
defendant's counter claim is concerned, it held that the plaintiff has perfected
title over 10 inches each of the defendant's property and after deducting the
same, it has granted a decree for the rest of the property, for recovery of
which the defendant had sought the counter claim.
2.Aggrieved by the decree, the plaintiff preferred A.S.No.11 of 2017 before I
Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore. The defendant however, does not prefer
any appeal vis-a-vis the 10 inches of property which according to the trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court that he had lost to the plaintiff by adverse possession. The First
Appellate Court would now set aside the decree of the trial Court and
remanded the matter for fresh considerations. The line of reasoning of the
First Appellate Court is:
a) that the trial Court has not marked the Commissioner's report.
b) the description of property as given by the plaintiff in the plaint is
factually incorrect. Whereas, the plaintiff's property lies to the south of
defendant's property, the description of property in the plaint was given as
one lying to the north of defendant's property.
3.This apart, the First Appellate Court has also directed re-issuance of the
Commissioner warrant for obtaining certain clarification.
4.Heard Ms.J.Deepika, the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondent
/ plaintiff is represented by Mr.Sai Srujan, the learned counsel was
appointed by the Legal Services Authority to defend the case.
5.Relying on the ratio in Sirajudheen Vs. Zeenath and Others [(2023) SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Online SC 196] and Elumalai Vs.Kanthamani Ammal [(2017) (1) CTC
307, the learned counsel submitted that even though Commissioner's report
has not been formally marked, the learned District Munsif indeed had relied
on the same for arriving at his conclusion. So far as the nature of
amendment required to be made is concerned, it is cosmetic, since there is
no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff's property lies to the south of
defendant's property. If any Commission needs to be appointed, it is well
within the powers of the First Appellate Court to appoint a Commissioner.
6.The suit is of the year 2005 and it would be an atrocious strategy if it were
to be remanded for making certain cosmetic amendments to the pleadings of
the plaintiff. So far as Commissioner's report is concerned, first the learned
trial Judge was in error in requiring that it must be formally marked through
plaintiff. It is a court record, and it is admissible without any formal proof
under Order XXVI Rule 10. At any rate, the learned trial Judge has
considered it and therefore the First Appellate Court too was in error in
attaching significance to its formal marking.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7.This Court, therefore, does not consider that there is hardly any ground as
to why the appeal must be remanded back to the trial Court.
8.In conclusion, this appeal stands allowed. This Court sets aside the order
of remand and remit the matter back to the First Appellate Court. The
plaintiff is at liberty to seek a formal amendment to the description of
property, more particularly, the boundaries of the property to fit it with
reality. The First Appellate Court is now required to mark the
Commissioner's report and the plan formally under Order 26 Rule 10
C.P.C., hear the parties and then take a call whether any particular fact is
required to be made available by the Commissioner. The First Appellate
Court is also directed that in the eventuality of it finding that any specific
fact is required to be found by the Commissioner on local inspection, then
warrant may be issued to the same Commissioner who had done the work
before the Lower Court, unless the learned counsel is either unavailable or
unwilling to undertake the responsibility.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
kas
9.The appeal is now required to be disposed of on or before 31.03.2024. No
cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.11.2023
kas
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation
To.
1.I Additional Subordinate Court
Cuddalore
2.The Additional District Munsif
Cuddalore.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
