Dismissed¶10

M. Manavalan v. D. Jamuna

Madras HC24 Mar 2025CRP/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (P.T. Asha, J., 24.03.2025) - C.R.P.No.208 of 2024 under Article 227: dismissal of defendant's Advocate Commissioner application (IA.No.4 of 2023) in OS.No.235 of 2019, Sub Court Gudiyattam (declaration of title and injunction suit by D. Jamuna), upheld; property fully described in plaint schedule, no dispute on identity/survey number/extent/nature, defendant to prove his case through his own evidence and not by the Commissioner's report.

What did the court decide?

The suit property has been described in great detail in the schedule to the plaint. ¶8

M. Manavalan Vs D. Jamuna — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the order of the learned Trial Judge dismissing the defendant's application in IA.No.4 of 2023 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property should be reversed in revision under Article 227.

¶O R D E R

Court's answer

The suit property has been described in great detail in the schedule to the plaint.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

From the admission in his written statement that he is in possession of and cultivates the suit property, the petitioner/defendant is also claiming a right to the suit property.

¶8

Key takeaways

Nowhere in the written statement has the petitioner contended that the suit property has not been properly described as a result of which it cannot be located.ratio¶9
The petitioner has to establish his case through his own evidence and not by relying upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner.ratio¶9
This Court sees no reason to reverse the order passed by the learned Trial Judge dismissing the application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition (under Article 227) by defendant M. Manavalan against the order dated 11.10.2023 of the Sub Court, Gudiyattam, dismissing IA.No.4 of 2023 in OS.No.235 of 2019 (a suit by plaintiff D. Jamuna for declaration of title and permanent injunction), whereby the defendant sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, with the help of the VAO and Taluk surveyor, to locate the suit property and note down its physical features. Held, dismissing the revision: the plaint schedule describes the property in great detail; the defendant's written statement nowhere contends that the property is improperly described or incapable of being located; the defendant's own admission of possession and cultivation shows that he also claims a right to the suit property; and the defendant has to establish his case through his own evidence and not by relying upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed; the connected miscellaneous petition (C.M.P.No.985 of 2024) is closed; no costs. (P.T. Asha, J.; 24.03.2025.)

¶1

C.R.P.No.208 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 24.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

¶6

C.R.P.No.208 of 2024 &

¶7

C.M.P.No. 985 of 2024

¶8

M. Manavalan ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

D. Jamuna ...Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the

¶12

Constitution of India against the order dated 11.10.2023 passed in IA.No.4 of 2023 in OS.No.235 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent : Mr. K.A.Ravindran

¶14

1/7

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

C.R.P.No.208 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The above civil revision petition is filed by defendant challenging the dismissal of his application seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property with the help of VAO and Taluk surveyor in IA.NO.4 of 2023 in OS.No.235 of 2019. The brief facts are as follows.

¶19

The respondent / plaintiff had filed the suit OS.No.235 of 2019 on the file of the Sub Court, Gudiyattam, seeking the relief of declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. The petitioner had also filed his written statement and the matter was posted for defendant's side evidence. Thereafter, the defendant had come forward with the application in question.

¶20

In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, the petitioner had stated that he is in enjoyment of the property which he had taken on lease. The petitioner would submit that he is in

¶21

2/7

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.R.P.No.208 of 2024

¶24

possession and enjoyment of the property till date and the respondent / plaintiff is now attempting to harass and defame him. He would submit that the respondent is guilty of burking facts, which would be proved by the Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, he sought for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to locate the property and note down the physical features. Once the Advocate Commissioner is appointed and report submitted it would reduce the evidence to be let in the case.

¶25

The respondent / plaintiff filed a counter inter alia contending

¶26

that the petition is nothing but an attempt to collect evidence. The respondent has filed the documents which would clearly establish the fact that she is the owner of the property. Further, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property or the physical features, the survey number, extent or the nature of the property and in these circumstances there was no necessity to appoint an Advocate Commissioner. The suit has been filed in the year 2019 and after chief examination of PW1, nearly a year later the application has been

¶27

3/7

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.R.P.No.208 of 2024

¶30

moved. Therefore, the respondent sought to have the petition dismissed.

¶31

The learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties and looking into the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the attempt of the petitioner is only to collect evidence and for which purpose he seeks to take the assistance of an Advocate Commissioner. Therefore, the application was dismissed.

¶32

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶33

Heard the learned counsels on the either side and perused the

¶34

records.

¶35

The petition has been filed to identify and locate the property and note down the physical features. The property has been described in great detail in the schedule to the plaint. The defendant has filed a written statement in which it is his case that he is in possession of the

¶36

4/7

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

C.R.P.No.208 of 2024

¶39

suit property in which he is carrying on cultivation. Therefore, from this admission it is clear that the petitioner / defendant is also claiming a right to the suit property.

¶40

Nowhere in the written statement has the petitioner contended

¶41

that the suit property has not been properly described as a result of which it cannot be located. The petitioner has to establish his case through his evidence and not by relying upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner.

¶42

Therefore, I see no reason to reverse the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

¶43

24.03.2025

¶44

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan

¶45

¶46

5/7

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

C.R.P.No.208 of 2024

¶49