Dismissed

Mani, v. Kalyani

Madras HC21 Jan 2014CRP(MD)/96/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure a disputed property and ascertain its survey number. The Court held that the trial court acted within its discretion given the confusion regarding survey numbers and the inadequacy of the previous report.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed; the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner was allowed to stand; connected Miscellaneous Petition also dismissed.

Mani, Vs Kalyani — Property and Title | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 21.01.2014 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN

¶4

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.96 of 2014 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014

¶5

1.Mani

¶6

2.Vasuki

¶7

..Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants

¶8

-vs-

¶9

Kalyani

¶10

..Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decretal order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Trichirapalli in I.A.No.676 of 2013 in O.S.No.1177 of 2005 dated 03.10.2013.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Devaraj

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

The defendants are before this Court challenging the order of appointment of Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Trial Court to note down the physical features and measure the suit property with the help of District Surveyor and locate the suit property.

¶15

The respondent herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1177 of 2005 for permanent injunction and similarly, the second petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.1055 of 2005 for declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction against the respondent herein. In the suit in O.S.No.1177 of 2005 filed by the respondent only, the present interlocutory application in I.A.No.676 of 2013 has been filed and the same is allowed.

¶16

Mr.R.Devaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that as per the order of the Court joint trial has been ordered since both the suits relate to the same property and both parties are one and the same. In O.S.No.1055 of 2005 filed by the second petitioner herein, an Advocate Commissioner has been appointed and he has also filed a report and therefore, there is no necessity again to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. He would further submit that the respondent already filed an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner and subsequently withdrawn it. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.

¶17

A perusal of the records would show that the application has been filed only to note down the physical features and measure the property with the help of District Surveyor and locate the suit property. The respondent contends that the property of the petitioners https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is a vari prompoke and he also contends that the property is situated in Survey No.58 and not in Survey No.57. When there is a dispute with regard to the survey numbers, it has to be ascertained only by

¶18

¶19

appointing an Advocate Commissioner who can measure the property with the help of the District Surveyor and the said report will be helpful to adjudicate the issue involved in the suit. Though earlier Advocate Commissioner was appointed as rightly noted by the Trial Court in paragraph 9 of the impugned order, the report did not disclose the survey number and classification of the land. Therefore, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary. Moreover, the discretion has been exercised by the Trial Court noting the importance of the Advocate Commissioner's report for adjudication of the issue and this Court cannot take a different view.

¶20

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(Per Admn.)

¶23

/TRUE COPY/

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

The Principal District Munsif, Trichirapalli.

¶27

+1cc to Mr.R.Devaraj, Advocate SR.No.3808

¶28

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.96 of 2014

¶29

and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2014 21.01.2014

¶30

skn PA/31.01.2014/2P/3C

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mani, v. Kalyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani, v. Kalyani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Moni Vs the Assistant Executive

K.Raju Vs Maruthammal

R. Balasubramanian, Vs S. Sethukarai Nadar

Branch Manager, Vs Sivakami, W/O. Kannan

R.Pitchammal, Aged 65 Yrs, Vs M.Rajarethinam, Aged 60 Yrs

Meenalochini Vs K.Ponnusamy