Dismissed

Devaraj v. Kuppammal,W/O Palani

Madras HC17 Apr 2021CRP/1262/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition against the dismissal of a petition seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner to measure suit property boundaries. The High Court upheld the lower court's order, holding that the plaintiff must first fix boundary lines through measurement before filing a suit, rather than relying on an advocate commissioner to find the original boundary. The revision petition was dism

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed.

Devaraj Vs Kuppammal,W/O Palani — Property and Title | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.04.2021

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018 and CMP.No.6494 of 2018

¶7

Devaraj ..Petitioner
Vs.
1.Kuppammal
2.Radha
3.Palani
4.Murugan
Kannan(died)
5.Viruthambal
6.Gopal
7.Rajiammal
8.Subha
9.Selvi
10.Meenakshi Ammal
11.Manikandan ..Respondents
PRAYER:

¶8

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶9

Constitution of India against the fair order and decretal order dated 13.04.2017 passed by Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur in IA.No.4 of 2017 in OS.No.301 of 2010.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.K.Saravanan

¶11

1/6

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018

¶14

For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.D.Baskar for Mr.K.R.Swaminathan

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This civil revision petition is filed against the fair order and decretal order dated 13.04.2017 passed by Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur in IA.No.4 of 2017 in OS.No.301 of 2010, thereby dismissing the petition seeking for appointment of advocate commissioner.

¶17

The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner filed suit for declaration and injunction in respect of suit A & B schedule property. The respondents filed their written statement and specifically averred that in respect of the B schedule property, it is situated in survey No.259/5 and is already in possession and enjoyment of the defendants. In fact, they were also granted patta and they have constructed terraced house with compound wall.

¶18

On perusal of the plaint revealed that in respect of A

¶19

schedule property is a patta land, in respect of B schedule property it is situated adjacent to A schedule property, in which the petitioner

¶20

2/6

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018

¶23

occupied in the year 1990 and he spent Rs.5,000/- for levelling the suit property. While being so, on 01.05.2010, the respondents 1 and 2 herein attempted to put up wall in the B schedule property. At that juncture, the petitioner filed petition for appointment of advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property with the help of Village Administrative Officer and Surveyor

¶24

to measure the same.

¶25

When the respondents specifically averred in their written statement that B schedule property is in their possession and enjoyment and they constructed terraced house with compound wall, the petitioner ought to have filed necessary petition for amendment to include the other relevant prayers. Instead of that, the petitioner filed petition for appointment of advocate commissioner, that too only to note down the physical features and to survey the land. If there is any dispute over the boundary, the petitioner is being the plaintiff he has to first measure the property and fix the boundary line and thereafter he ought to have filed the suit. He cannot be permitted to find out the original boundary of the suit property by appointment of advocate commissioner. Therefore, the court below rightly dismissed the petition and this Court finds no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed by the court below.

¶26

3/6

¶27

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶28

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018

¶29

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed.

¶30

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No order as

¶31

to costs.

¶32

17.04.2021

¶33

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No lok

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

4/6

¶36

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018

¶37

¶38

The Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

5/6

¶41

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018

¶42

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.

¶43

lok

¶44

CRP.PD.No.1262 of 2018

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶46

17.04.2021

¶47

6/6

Devaraj v. Kuppammal,W/O Palani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devaraj v. Kuppammal,W/O Palani

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

S.P.Raja Vs Neelavathy

P.N.Balasubramanian Vs K.Shanmugam

T.a.Viswanathan(died) Vs T.P.Subramani(died)

Panner Vs R.Vilwanathan

Panner Vs R.Vilwanathan

Chellamuthu Gounder Vs Kuppusamy Gounder