Revision petition filed against trial court order refusing appointment of Advocate Commissioner in a property title suit. Bench held facts differed from cited precedent and no necessity for commissioner arose.
Petition dismissed with no costs; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
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.
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.03.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023 and C.M.P. (MD)No.893 of 2023
K.Sundaravel ...Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
Vs.
Maruthaveeran ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 19.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif court, Virudhunagar.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.V.Nagarajan
For Respondent : Mr.E.Mareeshkumar
O R D E R
This Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the fair and
decreetal order dated 19.09.2022 passed in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in
1/6
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023
O.S.No.21 of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif court, Virudhunagar.
The suit property originally comprised in Survey No.944/1B and in S.No.945 and at present Survey No. is 1689/44. Survey No. 944 was subdivided into 944/1A, 944/1B and 944/2. In the property comprised in new S.No.1689/44, the respondent has no right or title. To prove the same, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is required.
2/6
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023
Against the patta proceedings, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer and that was also dismissed. They put up construction and they are living there. To assess the ownership or possession, no appointment of Advocate Commissioner can be made.
3/6
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023
favour against which the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer. That came to be dismissed. The order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 02.05.2018 is placed on record.
upon the order passed by this Court in CRP(MD)No.1781 of 2021.
4/6
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023
The facts in that case are entirely different from the present case.
court. Accordingly, this revision is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
18.03.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No CM
To
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023
G. ILANGOVAN, J.
CM
C.R.P(MD)No.185 of 2023 and C.M.P. (MD)No.893 of 2023
18.03.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court was correct in refusing to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to assess property features.
Whether there is sufficient ground to interfere with the trial court's order dismissing the request for a commissioner.
Whether a Divisional Officer's finding on possession and patta issuance precludes the need for a commissioner in a title dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
CRP(MD)No.1781 of 2021Distinguished¶37
K.Sundaravel
Maruthaveeran
G.ILANGOVAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
G.ILANGOVAN
Parties & counsel
