Remanded

Devunoori Methushala v. Devunoori Devaiah

Telangana HC25 Jul 2025CRP/2234/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff in a title and possession suit challenged closure of his application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure boundaries and note physical features. The High Court held the trial court's docket order was unreasoned, set it aside, and remanded the interlocutory application for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned docket order dated 04-04-2025 closing I.A.No.260 of 2024 set aside; matter remanded to Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar to dispose of the application per law.

Devunoori Methushala Vs Devunoori Devaiah — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENry FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2234 OF 2025

¶6

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia,^praying that^{in the} circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may^{be pleased} to allow the Revision Petition by setting aside the docket order dated^04-04- 2025 passed by the Principal JuniorCivil Judge at Karimangar in l. A. No.260 of 2024 in O. S. No. 1 158 of 2022.

¶7

Between

¶8

Devunoori Methushala, S/o. Late Anandam, Aged 56 yrs. Occ. Contractor, R/o. Pachunoor Village, Anandnagar Mandal, Nizamabad District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/ PETITION ER

¶10

AND

¶11

Devunoori Devaiah, S/o. Late Anandam, Aged 61^yrs. , Occu Retd.^Govt. Teacher, R/o. H. No. 3- 7- 6251A, Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar

¶12

...RESPON DENT/RESPONDENT

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY, Advocate

¶14

Counsel for the Respondent: BETHI VENKATESWARLU, Ad.vocate

¶15

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶16

HON,BLE SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHi}IAN CIV RE PE NN 40F

¶17

ORAL ORDER:

¶18

Heard Mr. venkat Reddy Kodurnury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shiva Prasad Bhimani, Iearned cour:sel representing Mr. Bethi vonkatesr,varlu, learned counsel fbr the respondent.

¶19

2- This revision is tiled under Section - 227 ol'the Constitution of lndia challenging rhe order dated a4.04.2025 in t.A. No.260 of 2024 in O.S. No. I 158 of 2022 passecl by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karirnnagar..

¶20

L'ide the afbresaid orcler, Iearned trial court closed the aforesaid I-A. 260 of 2024 holding that as the case posted for triat without prejudice to rights of both parties.

¶21

4- The petitiouer herein is the plaintiflf,, while reslrondent herein is the defencliirr in rhe af,oresaid suit o.S. No.ll5g.f 2022. The petitioner f,rled the albresaid suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Duri,g pendency of the said suit, the petitioner herein filed an interlocurory application vtcle r.A. No.260 of 2024 under order - xxvl, Rure - 9 of cpc seeking appointment of Advocate

¶22

¶23

, KL,J CRP No.22i4 of2025

¶24

"'ili. r''1 . 1 'r:

¶25

Commissioner to measure and fix the boundaries of suit^schedule propefty as per the schedule shown in the partition deed bearing document No.l186 ol 2008, dated 25.02.2008 and to note down^the physical features of the suit area with the help of-licensed Surveyor or Mandal Sun'eyor for better adjudication of suit claim on the follorving grounds:

¶26

He has filed the main suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit schedule area of 11.06 square^yards.The dimensions of the said area is 2'x29'^(towards east to west)⁺ l'x4l'.6" (towards north to south), bearing Plot No.9^(Part) out of Survey No. l3 15, situated at Vavilalapalli, Karimnagar.

¶27

ll. Originally, his mother purchased 304 square yards and her title was declared by virtue of declaratory decree dated 20.04.1,990 in O.S. No.363 of 1990 passed by learned District Munsiflf, Karimnagar

¶28

tlt After the death of his mother, himself and the^respondent partitioned the saille through registered partition'deed bearing document No.I 187 of 2008, dated 25.02.2008.

¶29

¶30

KL, J CRP No.22l4 of 2025

¶31

i ,i ii 1:

¶32

IV By virtue of the said partition deed, he acquired l3g square yards and respondent acquired 138 square yar-cls ancl an area of 27.73 square yards kept for passage.

¶33

V The respondcnt taking advantage of absence of the petitioner in Karimnagar Torvn star-ted construction illegall,u by encroaching into the suit area.

¶34

VI on coming to know the same, he and l-ris family members

¶35

approached and questioned the respon<ler t about such encroachmcnt, but the respondent lbisted a crirninal case against hin-r and his family rnembers and thereby he trled the subject suit.

¶36

vll. To prove the encroachment of his area by the r,:spondent, it is essenti:rl to appoint an advocate cornmissioner: frlr the aforesaid puqtose.

¶37

The afcrresaid applicatiou was opposed b1, :he respondent herein contending that thougtr their mother purchasecl ap extent of 304 square yards of land from her vendor, on the spot orrly 2gg square yards of land is available. He is in possession of 135 square yards of land in which he rnade construction of a house, whereas the petitioner is in possession of 135.67 square yards of land. The area of 27 .33

¶38

¶39

KL. J CRP No.2234 of2025

¶40

square yards of land is left for his passage which is 6 feet lane as he constructed house back side of plot of the petitioner for free ingress and egress to 20 t-eet road. Six Feet land was given as per the partition deed dated 25.02.2008. Now, the petitioner is olairning title over the said 6 feet lane by way of filing the aforesaid suit. It is settled law that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collection of evidence.

¶41

Vicle docket order 04.04.2025, learned trial Court closed the

¶42

said t.A. by observing thus

¶43

"As cuse posted for trtal w'ithottt prejudice to rights of both parties IA closed."

¶44

Challenging the said order, the petitioner fited the present revision contending that the petitioner hled the aforesaid I.A. No.260 of 2024 to rneasure the dirnension and also to note down the physical features by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. It is specifically mentioned in the grounds of revision that report of Advocate Commissioner would help the trial Court in deciding the /rs involved in the said suit. lnstead of allowing the said application and appointing Advocate Commissioner, the trial Court closed the I.A. holding that the suit is posted for trial, without prejudice to the rights

¶45

¶46

KL, J CRP No.213.1 o12025

¶47

of both parties, IA was closed. Thereibre, the imprgned docket order dated 04.04-2025 of trial Cor-rft is not a reasoned or.der and the trial court erroneously closed the said application hled by rhe petitioner.

¶48

\vhereas, learned counsel appear.ing firr- the respondent contended tlrat the very suit is posted fbr trial ancl. tl'reretbre, there is no need of appointing Advocate commissioner. 'fhe trial Court rcserved rights of the parties.

¶49

In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is relevant to note that order - XXVI, Rule - 9 of cpc refers to commissions for local in'estigation:s and as per which in any suit in rvhich the courl deems a local investi.gation to be requisite or- proper ficr the purpose of elucidating arly matter in dispute, or ol'ascertaining the market value of any propefty, or the amount of any ntesne proJits.r damages or annual net profits, the courl may issue a comrnission to such person as it thinks tlr directing hirn to make such investigation and to report thcreon to the court. Thus, the object of appointing an Advocate as Comrnissioner is to assist the court in deciding the /is. The petitioner specifically contended that the Advocate commissioner has to be appointed fbr the purpose of noting down the dimensions and also

iir

,l i,

llr I i'

KL, J CRP No.2234 of2025

¶55

noting down physical features of the suit area as per the schedule shown in the Partition Deed bearing document No.1187 of 2008 dated 25.02.2008. Therefore, the trial Court has to decide the subject application on merits instead of closing it. On consideration of the pleadings, if the trial Court is not inclined to allow the said application and appoint an Advocate Commissioner, it has to assign reasons and decide it. lnstead of doing So, the trial Court closed the said interlocutory application holding that the matter is posted for trial, without prejudice to the rights of both pafties, it has closed. Therefore, the impugned order of trial Court is not a reasoned order.

¶56

Without going into the merits of the case, on the aforesaid ground itself, the impugned order dated 04.04.2025 in I.A. No.260 of 2024 in O.S. No.1l58 of 2022 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, with a direction to dispose of I.A No.260 of 2024 strictly in accordance with law.

¶57

I 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

¶59

KL, J CRP i.i'.o.2214 of 2025

¶60

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, il'anv, pending in

¶61

the revision shall stancl closed.

¶62

SD/. K. AMMAJI TY REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPY//

ON OFFICER

To,

1 The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Karimangar

¶67

ONE CC tO [I4r, VENKAT REDDY KODUMURY, AdVOCAIE [OPUC]

¶68

one cc to [/r BETHT VENKATESWARLU, Advocate. [opuc]

¶69

Two CD Copisg J feX <-

HIGH COURT

DATED: 25lAT n025

ORDER

CRP.No.2234 of 2A25

:e (ir <br>i,
c2
.$ +
,q
$
iI
\il.q' <br>lr$ti"t +

¶75

The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly Disposed.

¶76

{

Devunoori Methushala v. Devunoori Devaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devunoori Methushala v. Devunoori Devaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raju Nayak Vs The State of Telangana

Puram Yadaiah Vs The State of Telangana

M.Bagyamma @ Shivaiahgari Bagyavathi Vs The State of Telangana

Panga Mallesham Vs The State of Telangana

Kakollu Mamatha Vs State of Telangana

Anamgalla Ashok Kumar Vs The State of Telangana