The High Court dismissed a revision petition challenging the appointment of an advocate commissioner for partitioning property in final decree proceedings, holding that such appointment is necessary for metes and bounds division and contains no infirmity.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRP.No.2087 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated 17.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
CRP.No.2087 of 2023 and CMP.No.12804 of 2023
1.C.P.Shanmugham 2.S.Chandra 3.S.Gopinath
... Petitioners
Versus
A.P.Rajendran ... Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decretal order dated 12.04.2023 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2020 in O.S.No.139 of 2012 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.
For petitioners : Mr.R.Bharath Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Saranraj
O R D E R
Page 1 / 4
CRP.No.2087 of 2023
Challenge has been made for the appointment of advocate commissioner to divide the property into two equal shares in a final decree proceedings, the present revision petition has been filed.
two equal shares. Challenging the said order, this revision.
Page 2 / 4
CRP.No.2087 of 2023
application, advocate commissioner has been appointed by the Trial Court for division of the property. Such view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Trial Court in appointing the advocate commissioner for division of property. The partition has to be effected by metes and bounds and that can be done only by way of proper division. Therefore, appointment of advocate commissioner by the Trial Court does not require any interference by this Court.
17.12.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking/non speaking order dhk
To,
The V Additional District Judge V Additional District Court, Coimbatore
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
Page 3 / 4
CRP.No.2087 of 2023
dhk
CRP.No.2087 of 2023
17.12.2024
Page 4 / 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appointment of an advocate commissioner for division of property in final decree proceedings required interference by the High Court under Article 227?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C.P. Shanmugham
S. Chandra
S. Gopinath
A.P. Rajendran
N. SATHISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
