Allowed

Rethinam, v. G.Radhika

Madras HC30 Nov 2020CRP(MD)/1082/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an ex-parte order appointing a Commission to survey properties. The Court held that the revision petitioner must be heard by filing objections to the appointment before the trial Court, setting aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 04.06.2019 appointing a Commission was set aside; the revision petitioner was directed to file objections within one week, and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the matter wit

Rethinam, Vs G.Radhika — Property and Title | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1082 of 2019

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30.11.2020

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE

¶5

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1082 of 2019 &CMP(MD).Nos.5900, 8780 & 8781 of 2019

¶6

Rethinam ... Revision Petitioner/1st Respondent/ 1st Defendant

¶7

Vs.

¶8

1.G.Radhika ... Respondent/Petitioner/Plaintiff 2.Vadivel Raja ... Respondent/2nd Respondent/2nd Defendant

¶9

PRAYER : The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 04.06.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil in I.A.No.03 of 2019 in O.S.No.109 of 2019 on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.Niranjan S.Kumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajasekar for R1 No appearance for R2

¶11

ORDER

¶12

The revision petitioner is a defendant in O.S.No.109 of 2019 on the file of District Court, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. The suit is laid for declaration that the suit property falls in Sy.No.39/5 of Therelkalputhoor Village. The plaintiff has alleged in paragraph no.13 of the plaint that in his title document instead of mentioning Sy.No.39/5, it is wrongly mentioned as Sy.No.39/4, and has further alleged that taking advantage of the same, the defendants are attempting to disturb his possession.

¶13

1.2.The first respondent/plaintiff has filed a petition for appointment of a Commission to survey both the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants in terms of the boundaries of their respective title documents and for couple of other points. An exparte order for appointing a Commission was ordered by the trial Court. This is now in challenge.

¶14

2.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant vehemently argued that whether the property of the first respondent/plaintiff, in terms of the boundary description of his title documents, fell in Sy.No.39/5 or Sy.No.39/4 is a matter for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

1/3

¶16

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1082 of 2019

¶17

evidence, and that a Commission cannot be appointed to cull out particulars. Secondly, he did not have an opportunity to even oppose the appointment of a Commission, since an ex-parte Commission was appointed, and a Commissioner too visited the property. The defendant came to know about the appointment of the Commissioner only on receipt of the notice issued by the Commissioner.

¶18

3.Heard, the learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff.

¶19

4.It may be stated that Survey Number of the property is one of the factor for identifying a certain property. To expatiate, a property can be identified in terms of the Survey Number, or in terms of the boundaries, and in case of a conflict between boundaries and extent, generally boundaries are preferred. However, whether a Commissioner has to be appointed in the context of the case has to be decided on a broad proposition.

¶20

5.So far as the revision petitioner/defendant, his only grievance is that he was not heard.

¶21

6.In these circumstances, this Court only requires the revision petitioner to file his objection to the petition, and the trial Court is required to decide the issue on the basis of the broad proposition hereinabove indicated. However, the trial Court is not entirely bound by the proposition hereinabove indicated, since the trial Court has got its independent discretion under the procedural law to decide this matter.

¶22

7.To conclude, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 04.06.2019 in I.A.No.03 of 2019 in O.S.No.109 of 2019 is set aside and the revision petitioner is now required to file his objection to the Commissioner within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Wherein after, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter within a period of one week thereafter. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-I)

¶24

// True Copy //

¶25

/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶26

Tsg-2

¶27

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

¶28

2/3

¶29

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1082 of 2019

¶30

¶31

1.The District Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil

¶32

2.The Section Officer,

¶33

V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai (2 copies).

¶34

+1 CC to M/s.NIRANJAN S. KUMAR, Advocate ( SR-23456[F] dated 01/12/2020 )

¶35

+1 CC to M/s.T.LAJAPATHI ROY, Advocate ( SR-23441[F] dated 01/12/2020 )

¶36

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.1082 of 2019 30.11.2020

¶37

na(CO)

¶38

TR(03.12.2020) 3P 6C

¶39

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

¶40

3/3

Rethinam, v. G.Radhika

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rethinam, v. G.Radhika

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

R. Indirani Vs N. Manoharan

The United India Insurance Co. Vs P.Ravichandran

Chinnasamy Vs Jeyalakshmi

Mani Vs N.Krihnamurthy

Annalakshmi Vs Yemu Konar

E.R.Sellammal Vs C.Rajasekaran