Dismissed

K.Kumar v. Settu

Madras HC19 Mar 2018CRP/944/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order rejecting an application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure suit property. The court held that the impugned order passed by the Additional District Munsif was correct and there was no warrant for interference.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs.

K.Kumar Vs Settu — Property and Title | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 19.03.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP(PD).No.944 of 2018
and
C.M.P.No.5078 of 2018
K.Kumar .. Petitioner/Defendant
Vs.
Settu .. Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER : Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India against the fair and decreetal order dated
05.01.2018 made in I.A.No.1012 of 2017 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 on the file
of the Additional District Munsif at Tirupattur.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vinoth Kumar

¶8

- - - *

¶9

O R D E R

¶10

The Civil Revision Petition is taken up for final disposal at the

¶11

admission stage itself.

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

¶14

2.According to the revision petitioner, the petitioner/defendant

¶15

has filed an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.1012 of 2017 in O.S.No.8 of 2017 under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure

¶16

for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property with metes and bounds with the help of Surveyor and Village Administrative Officer and note down the physical features and note down the buildings, E.B. service connection No., if found and to note down the actual possession and enjoyment of the suit property on the basis of the sale agreement dated 05.04.1988 to file a elaborate report.

¶17

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant not to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the property. But actually the petitioner/defendant is

¶18

in possession and enjoyment of the property till this date. The respondent/plaintiff and one Krishnan father of the petitioner/defendant had executed a sale agreement dated 05.04.1988, for a sale consideration of Rs.35,000/-. The above said sale consideration was denied by the petitioner/defendant who is in physical possession of the

¶19

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶20

¶21

property. Therefore, the court below has rightly rejected the aforesaid application and there is no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Court below and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶22

4.Thus, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently,

¶23

the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶24

19.03.2018
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
ah
To

¶25

The Additional District Munsif, Tirupattur.

¶26

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶27

¶28

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶29

¶30

CRP(PD).No.944 of 2018

¶31

19.03.2018

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

K.Kumar v. Settu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Kumar v. Settu

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

P.Palanivel, Vs G.Baskaran

Md. Kabeer Ahmed Vs President

B. Omprakash Varma Vs Ragu Baskar

Subathrai Vs Krishnammal

V. Hemalatha Vs v. Guru

L.Kannan Vs M.Kuppusamy