Dismissed

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju, S/o late Raghunadha Raju v. Smt. T.Prabhavathi, W/o Tss Narayana Raju

Telangana HC15 Feb 2013CRP/3689/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an application for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to measure and demarcate land in a property title suit, holding that factual questions regarding land extent must be established by evidence, not commission reports.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs.

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju, S/o late Raghunadha Raju… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3689 OF 2012

¶3

Dated: 15.02.2013

¶4

Between :

¶5

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju and two others. … Petitioners And Smt. T. Prabhavathi and seven others. … Respondents

¶6

The Court made the following:-

¶7

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3689 OF 2012

¶9

ORDER:

¶10

The revision petitioners are the defendants 1, 2 & 4 in O.S.No.165 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam. They are aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.524 of 2010 filed by them for appointment of an advocate-commissioner for the following purpose:

¶11

“to localise the entire land in an extent of Ac.11.24 cents in S.No 81/1 by measuring the S.No 81/1 and S.No 85 of Tallavalasa village, Bheemunipatnam mandal, to separate the land in an extent of Ac.9.50 cents out of Ac.11.24 cents, to demarcate the plaintiff’s land of Ac.4.75 cents out of Ac.9.50 cents and to show whether suit site of Ac 0.33 cents lies in Ac.4.75 cents or in S.No 85 which is part of ancestral property of defendants 1 to 4, to fix boundaries of the suit land and draw a plan showing the said properties with measurements in S.No.85, S.No 81/1 with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor, Tahasildar Officer, Bheemunipatnam with the aid of F M B record in the interests of justice.”

¶12

The said application was dismissed by the order under Revision dated 13.12.2011 and aggrieved by the same the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

¶13

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/plaintiff.

¶14

Admittedly, the suit prayer includes mandatory injunction as well as permanent injunction. The purpose for which the commissioner is sought to be appointed includes localisation of the entire land and to separate the land to an extent of Ac.9.50 cents and to ascertain whether the suit schedule property lies in that particular Survey number or Survey No.85, which is claimed to be a part of ancestral property of the defendants. As rightly held by the Court

¶15

below, it is a matter to be established by adducing evidence and it is impermissible under law to allow a party to gather evidence through the Commissioner.

¶16

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below was justified in dismissing the application and the said order cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever.

¶17

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any filed along with the revision petition, shall stand closed.

¶18

____________ G. ROHINI, J

¶19

Date: 15.02.2013 sr/rns THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3689 OF 2012

¶21

Dated 15.02.2013

¶22

sr/rns

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju, S/o late Raghunadha Raju v. Smt. T.Prabhavathi, W/o Tss Narayana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poosapati Haranarayana Raju, S/o late Raghunadha Raju v. Smt. T.Prabhavathi, W/o Tss Narayana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Thakur Niranjan Singh, Vs a. Shivakoti Prasad

Ampolu Eswara Venkata Krishna Vs Kondru Prathima

Mohammad Madeena Vs Fatte Ahmed

Radi Balaraju, Vs Kolisi Mary

Smt. T.Prabavathi Vs Poosapati Haranarayana Raju

G. Subrahmanyam Vs Ch. Vijaya Kumar