Dismissed

Rukmani v. Ramalingam

Madras HC13 Mar 2025CRP(MD)/472/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the rejection of an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the possession of the defendants over specific survey numbers. The Court held that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed merely to determine possession, which is a matter of fact to be established by the parties through evidence.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rukmani Vs Ramalingam — Property and Title | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.03.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR

¶6

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶7

1.Rukmani 2.Niroja

¶8

3.Venkateswaran ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶9

¶10

1.Ramalingam 2.Arumbu 3.Manthiramoorthy 4.Karunamoorthy 5.Usharani 6.Vijayaragavan 7.Subash (Notice to the 6^th respondent may be dispensed with) ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, as against the fair and decreal order made in I.A.No. 1 of 2022 in O.S.No. 233 of 2018, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai, dated 08-12-2022.

¶12

For Petitioners : Mr.N.Balakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan for R1 No appearance for R2 to R5 and R7 R6- Dispensed with * * * * *

¶13

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

¶14

1/6

¶15

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.233 of 2018, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai, have filed the present revision petition, challenging the dismissal of their application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property along with a report and plan.

¶18

2.A perusal of the records reveal that the revision petitioners herein had filed the above said suit for the relief of declaration of title over 'A' schedule property. The plaintiffs had further prayed for recovery of possession of items Nos.1 and 2 of the "B' schedule property from the first defendant. The plaintiffs had further prayed for recovery of possession of third item of the "B' schedule property from the defendants 2 to 7.

¶19

3.Pending suit, the plaintiffs had filed I.A.No.1 of 2022, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property along with rough sketch and report.

¶20

4.According to the plaintiffs, the defendants in the suit have claimed that they are not in possession of survey numbers which are pointed out in the plaint schedule. In such circumstances, the Advocate Commissioner has to be appointed to note down which of the defendants are in possession of which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis survey numbers. This application was resisted by the defendants on the ground

¶21

2/6

¶22

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶23

that the plaintiffs are attempting to collect the evidence through the Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court has accepted the contentions of the defendants and dismissed the petition. Challenging the same, the present revision petition has been filed.

¶24

5.According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, a suit had been filed alleging that some of the defendants are in possession of certain particular survey numbers. However, in the written statement, the same has been disputed by them. In such circumstances, unless an Advocate Commissioner is appointed to find out which of the defendants are in possession of the respective survey numbers, it would be difficult for the plaintiffs to establish their case.

¶25

6.The learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioners, relying upon the judgments of this Court reported in 1999 (2) MLJ 526 and 2019 (2) MWN(Civil) 514, had contended that appointment of Advocate Commissioner is necessary in order to minimise the oral and documentary evidence. Further, it would not cause any prejudice to the defendants. He further relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (1) TLNJ 145 (Civil) and contended that the application has been filed only to enlighten the Court and not to fish out any evidence.

¶26

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

¶27

3/6

¶28

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶29

7.Per contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents herein

¶30

relied upon the averments in I.A.No.1 of 2022 had contended that the application has been filed for the specific purpose to find out the possession of the defendants. The Advocate Commissioner can decide about the possession of the parties.

¶31

8.I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

¶32

9.The prayer in the suit will clearly reveal that the plaintiffs have categorically averred that which of the defendants are in possession of which items of the property. The said facts have been specifically disputed by the defendants. Therefore, the burden would be upon the plaintiffs to establish that the defendants are in possession of those particular items of the properties.

¶33

10.A perusal of the affidavit filed in I.A.No.1 of 2022, reveals that the petitioners want to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of finding out the possession of the defendants with regard to the various survey numbers. Therefore, it is clear that the application has been filed only to find out whether the defendants are in possession of the respective items of the suit schedule property or not.

¶34

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

¶35

4/6

¶36

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶37

11.It is settled position of law that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be

¶38

appointed to find out the possession of any one the parties to the proceedings.

¶39

12.As far as the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing

¶40

for the revision petitioners are concerned, those cases relate to suits, where the identity of the the suit schedule property was in dispute. As far as the judgment in 2009 (1) TLNJ 145(Civil) is concerned, there was a dispute with regard to existence of the cart track. However, in the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the identify or lie or location of the suit schedule property. In such circumstances, the prayer sought for, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not sustainable. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application. There are no merits in the revision petition.

¶41

13.Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶42

13.03.2025 2/2

¶43

Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No RJR

¶44

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

¶45

5/6

¶46

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶47

R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

¶48

RJR

¶49

¶50

The learned District Munsif, Pattukkottai.

¶51

Copy to:- The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶52

C.R.P.(PD)(MD)No.472 of 2023

¶53

13.03.2025 2/2

¶54

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

¶55

6/6

Rukmani v. Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rukmani v. Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karmegam Vs Kalimuthu

Correspondent Vs a.Renuka

Ravichandran Vs Sherfuddin

Malar Vs P.Manoharan

Samayathurai Vs Dharmaraj

N.P.Sukumar Vs Daniel Soloman