Telangana High Court
Nandagiri Susheela vs Nandagiri Agaiah on 12 January, 2024
Author: P. Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2649 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the
order passed in I.A.No.262 of 2023 in A.S.No.25 of 2018,
dated 05.06.2023 on the file of the Court of the I Additional
District Judge at Karimnagar.
2. I.A.No.262 of 2023 is filed by petitioner/plaintiff for
appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down
the physical features of the Suit Schedule Property and the
same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Against the same,
the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. Learned counsel of petitioner mainly contended that
the appellate Court ought to have seen that appointment of
an advocate commissioner at this stage would end in
resolution of the dispute exist between the parties and
ought to have seen that no prejudice would have been
caused to the interest of the respondents herein in the
event of appointing advocate commissioner. 2
4. The Suit vide O.S.No.10 of 2011 filed for declaration
of title and perpetual injunction was dismissed by the trial
Court on 29.11.2017 and against the same, the appeal vide
A.S.No.25 of 2018 is preferred. During the pendency of the
appeal, I.A.No.262 of 2023 was filed and it was dismissed
on 05.06.2023.
5. The petitioner herein before the trial Court stated
that her father was having land to an extent of Ac.04.38
guntas in Sy.No.1253 and he has sold most of the land
except the suit schedule property which was meant for
family firewood business. The respondents stated that
petitioner created false documents regarding the said
property claiming the right over the property and further
contended that her adoptive father sold the property in
favour of one Nandagiri Lachaiah and also filed pattadar
passbook and possession certificate issued by the Gram
Panchayath. But they have not filed copy of sale deed.
Though Exs. A1 to A.11 are filed, the trial Court did not
consider the same, though the petitioner is in possession of
suit schedule property and her son is using the suit 3
schedule property for preserving timber. Therefore,
requested for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.
6. In the counter filed by the respondents, they
contended that petitioner is trying to introduce a new case
without pleading at the earlier stage. The adoptive father of
the petitioner died in the year 1994. The petitioner filed a
proof that she is adoptive daughter and she is entitled to
claim the suit land. She filed false suit to grab the
property from the defendants. As such, the said
application for appointing of the advocate commissioner
cannot be permitted to prove the possession and they also
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in
A.Gopal Reddy Vs.R.Subramanyam Reddy 1.
7. The 1st appellate Court considered several citations
and held that Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed
to prove possession of the property as the petitioner did not
explained proper reasons. It was also observed that no
plea was taken by either of the parties before the trial
Court when the pleadings of the parties are with the same
1 2013 93 ALT 623 : 2013 (1) L.S. 356 4
background. As such, appointment of Advocate
Commissioner to note down the physical features of the
property is not required. Moreover, the said application
was filed with an intention to drag the proceedings and
accordingly dismissed the application.
8. The main contention of the petitioner herein is that
she is in possession of the property and her son is using
the land for preserving timber and the appointment of
Advocate Commissioner would put an end to the litigation
of the parties. Petitioner herein intended file the
proceedings of the Tahasildar, Manakondur Mandal vide
Lr.No.B/1009/2022, dated 01.10.2022 by way of
additional evidence to prove her possession. In fact she
asked for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note
down the physical features. As there is no dispute
regarding the physical features, the trial Court rightly
observed that there is no requirement to appoint an
Advocate Commissioner and also the possession has to be
proved by both the parties by adducing proper oral and
documentary evidence. The Advocate Commissioner 5
cannot be appointed to prove the possession as it amounts
to collection of evidence. Therefore, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the order passed by trial Court in
I.A.No.262 of 2023 in A.S.No.25 of 2018.
9. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
___________________ P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 12.01.2024 CHS 6
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
C.R.P. No. 2649 of 2023
DATED: 12.01.2024
CHS
