Dismissed

Ramakka v. Muneppa

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Jul 2024CRP/825/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suit for permanent injunction over land and a house. Trial court allowed respondents' application to appoint an advocate commissioner with the Mandal Surveyor to identify survey number, boundaries and existing structures. Petitioner argued this was collection of evidence; the court held physical inspection was necessary given rival claims and dismissed the revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no costs ordered; trial court's order appointing the advocate commissioner stands.

Ramakka Vs Muneppa — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶2

FRIDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

C
2 h
^
>>o ^ V n i-) >/>

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 825 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 22.03.2024 in I.A.No.529 of 2023 in O.S.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, Chittoor District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Ramakka, w/o Venkataswamy, Hindu, 63 years, Occ; Cultivation Vasanadu Gollapalli Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District Rep. by GPA Holder, Subrahmanyam.

¶10

...Petitioner/Respondent/Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

Muneppa, (Died)

¶13

Muniraju, s/o Muneppa, Hindu, 40 years, Occ; Cultivation, Vasanadu Gollapalli Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶14

Ramesh, s/o Muneppa, Hindu, 38 years, Occ; Cultivation, Vasanadu Gollapalli Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶15

Krishnamurthy, s/o Muneppa, Hindu, 36 years, Occ; Cultivation,

¶16

Vasanadu Gollapalli Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶17

Chinnamma @ Adilakshmi, d/o Muneppa, Hindu, 38 years, Occ: Cultivation, Vasanadu Gollapalli Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District.

¶18

...Respondents/Petitioners/Defendants

¶19

lA NO; 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the order dated 22.03.2023 in I.A.No.529 of 2023 in O.S.No.183 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam, Chittoor District pending disposal of the above Civil^{RevisionPetition.}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Mahadeva Kanthrigala

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents; Sri. K V L Narasimha Rao

¶23

The Court made the following:

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶26

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.825 of 2024

¶27

Between:

¶28

Ramakka, W/o.Venkataswamy, Hindu, 63 years, Occ: Cultivation, Vasanadu Gollapalli Village, Kuppam Mandal Chittoor District,

¶29

Rep.by GPA Holder, Subrahmanyam.

...Petitioner

Versus

1. Muneppa (Died)

Muniraju, S/o.Muneppa, Hindu, 40 years, Occ: Cultivation, Vasanadu Gollapalli Village, Kuppam Mandal

¶34

Chittoor District & 5 others.

¶35

...Respondents

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala

¶37

Counsel for Respondents

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Dt: 19.07.2024

¶40

Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the

¶41

Petitioner.

¶42

The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.183 of 2011 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kuppam against the respondents herein for grant of permanent injunction against the

¶43

2 RRRJ CRP. No.825 of2024

¶44

¶45

respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioner over the suit schedule property consisting of two items. The first item being described in Schedule-A of the suit as an extent of land in Sy.No.13/3 of Vasanadu Gollapalli Village and item No.2 being a country tiled house bearing D.No.3-23 of Vasanadu Gollapalli Village.^Thesaid ‘B’ Schedule being part of the ‘A’ schedule property.

¶46

The respondents herein resisted the suit on the ground that the suit schedule property was originally assigned^{tothemotherof} the respondents Smt. Santhamma under a D-form patta^and that the respondents had constructed two portions of houses^andtwo small shops on the said property and that they are in occupation^ofthesaid property after paying house tax. The respondents also^{contendedthat} the description of the property does not match the property on the ground.

¶47

The respondents, during the pendency of the suit, had^filed I.A.No.529 of 2023 for appointment of an advocate commissioner^to visit the suit schedule property along with the Mandal Surveyor along with revenue records to identify the survey number^{ofthesuitschedule} property and to note the existing boundaries for the suit schedule property as well as the houses and shops which are existing on the said land. This application was contested by the petitioner on the ground that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in such

¶48

¶49

RRRJ CRP. No.825 of 2024

¶50

circumstances would amount to collection of evidence and the same is beyond the scope of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

¶51

The trial Court after considering the arguments of^both sides had allowed the application, by an order dated 22.03.2024, by appointing a learned advocate as the Advocate Commissioner to visit the schedule property along with the Mandal Surveyor to identify the survey of the suit schedule property and to note the existing boundaries of the suit schedule property apart from^{theexistenceofthe} house and shop rooms etc.

¶52

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has now^moved the present Civil Revision petition.

¶53

Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a Judgment of a learned single judge of the combined High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Sarala Jain and Others vs. Sangu Gangadhar and Others\ would contend that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purposes^setoutin the application, would clearly amount to gathering^{ofevidenceandthe} same is prohibited.

¶54

2016 (3 )ALD 197

¶55

¶56

RRR,J CRP. No.825 of 2024

¶57

¶58

The learned Single Judge, in the paragraph No. 8, of^the above cited judgment had noticed judgments for the proposition that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of property etc., would not amount to collection of evidence and also, in paragraph No.7, the judgments holding that appointing of an Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of property is nothing^{butcollectionof} evidence which is not permissible in law. The learned single Judge after noticing these judgments had set out certain guidelines for considering an application for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and had held that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for fixing boundaries to the property of the respondents, in the case before him, would not serve any purpose^astherewasno contention of the petitioner therein that the schedule property was not demarcated and that the trial Court had not looked into the pleadings of the parties. Consequently, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in that case was set aside.

¶59

In the present case, the contention of the petitioner^isthat the petitioner is in possession of the land set out in the schedule-A apart from one house existing in schedule-B. The contention of the respondents has been that there are in fact two houses and shops constructed in the land and that the description of^{theboundariesofthe}

¶60

¶61

RRR,J CRP. No.825 of 2024

¶62

property and the location of the property in the plaint does not match the situation on the ground.

¶63

The evidence in relation to the situation on the ground, especially in view of the rival submissions in the present case, can only be resolved by way of an Advocate Commissioner inspecting the property in question and noting down the physical features including the existence of the structures in the land. In the present case, the trial Court had, on a proper appreciation of these facts, appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Such exercise of discretion cannot be faulted and this Civil,Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. 7 v.f * V' Itr-: Accordingly;'this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

¶64

shall be no order as to costs.

¶65

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any,^shallstand

¶66

closed.

¶67

SDI- M PRABHAKARA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// h SECTION OFFICER

¶68

To,

¶69

The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kuppam,^{ChittoorDistrict}

¶70

One CC to Sri. Mahadeva Kanthrigala, Advocate [OPUC]

¶71

One CC to Sri. K V L Narasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC]

¶72

Three CD Copies

SAM

sree

HIGH COURT

DATED:19/07/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.825 of 2024

5 0 6 SEP 20?^ n
^ . Current Section ^

¶80

DISMISSING THIS C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Ramakka v. Muneppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakka v. Muneppa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Duvvuru Mohan Reddy Vs Kintrapakam Uma Maheswar Rao

S Satyanarayanamma Vs K v R R Raju

Palgudi Santhamma Vs v Rajamma

Mrs. Godata Laxmi Vs The Government of A.P. rep. by Principal Secretary

P. Bhaskar, Vs Comer Stone World Challenge

Chinthalapuram N. YugandharRaju Vs Nagireddigari Venkata Reddy