Dismissed¶69

Kyama Venkateshwarlu v. Smt. a.Sushma

Telangana HC10 Oct 2025CRP/3156/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court, CRP No.3156 of 2024, decided 10-10-2025 by Justice Renuka Yara: Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC refused in a perpetual injunction suit where only noting down of physical features of suit land was sought; absence of encroachment claim or identification/location prayer; crux of issue is possession; burden of proof on plaintiff-owner; precedents on local investigation (Jaiula Koteshwar Rao, Bandaru Mutyalu, P. Sreedevi, Haryana Waqf Board, J. Venkateshwar Rao, C. Veeranna) referred through counsel's submissions; revision dismissed confirming trial court order, no costs.

What did the court decide?

When respondent No.1, who approached the court, claims to be owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, the burden of proof is on her to discharge the same. ¶56

Kyama Venkateshwarlu Vs Smt. a.Sushma — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court rightly dismissed I.A.No.1381 of 2021 (the application under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to investigate/note down the physical features of the suit schedule land) in a suit for perpetual injunction, and whether the revisional court should interfere with that order.

¶68

Court's answer

When respondent No.1, who approached the court, claims to be owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, the burden of proof is on her to discharge the same.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

An Advocate Commissioner can be appointed when there is a claim of encroachment of certain land or identification of land by the party who approaches the court.

¶65

Key takeaways

Though there is a dispute about identification of the land, where there is no prayer for ascertaining the location of the lands of the respective parties, mere noting down of physical features, without noting down the location of the suit survey number and the survey number claimed by the petitioner and respondent No.2, will not come to the aid of the court in adjudication of the matter.ratio¶65
In the instant case there is no allegation of encroachment on the part of respondent No.1 and no allegation of any ambiguity with respect to the identity of the suit land by respondent No.1; it is therefore for respondent No.1 to prove her case of ownership and possession.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.04.2024 of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy in I.A.No.1381 of 2021 in I.A.No.1100 of 2021 in O.S.No.436 of 2021, whereby the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 r/w 151 CPC for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to investigate the physical features of the suit schedule land (Sy.No.60/F.El, Ac.2.00 Gts., Ulpara village, Vongur Mandal) in a suit for perpetual injunction was dismissed. Held: an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed where there is a claim of encroachment or where the party approaching the court seeks identification/location of the land; but where, as here, there is no allegation of encroachment and no ambiguity as to the identity of the suit land, and the application sought only noting down of physical features without noting the location of the suit survey number and the survey numbers claimed by the contesting parties, such exercise will not aid adjudication, the real crux being possession, and the burden of proving ownership and possession lies on the plaintiff who invoked the court. Revision petition dismissed, confirming the impugned order; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH^{COURTFOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE TENTH^{DAY OF OCTOBER} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT^{JUSTICE RENUKA YARA}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION^{NO:3156 0F 2024}

¶6

Petition under Anicle^{227 of the constitutionof lndia aggrieved by the order} dated 1610412024^{in l.A No. 1381 0f 2021 in l.A No.11000f 2021 in O.S No. 436 0f} 2021 on the file of^{the Court of the Junior Civil Judge,Kalwakurthy'}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Kyama Venkateshwarlu,^{S/o. Laxminarayana, aged 53 years, Occ-Agriculture'} Hio. Ufp"o Village,^{VongurMandal,KalwakurthyMandal, Nagarkurnool} District.

¶9

...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANTS^{NO. 3}

¶10

AND

¶11

Smt. A.Sushma,^{D/o. A.sujeevan Reddy,aged about- 33 years' Occ-Private} Service, R/o. H.No.^{B-1-15t2911,Padmanagar Colony,Ambica Shop'} Karmanghat,saroornagarMandal'RRDistrict,T.SPresentlyResidingat. g Og, f;ir Green Ave, Vaxhaw North Caolia USA, Rep^{by herGeneral Power} ofRttotn"y, A.Sanjeevan^{ReddyS/o. Kondal Reddy,Age-55 years' Occ-} ngricultur;, R/o.^{H.No.2-35, Kondareddypally Village, Vangoor Mandal'} Nagarkurnool District.

¶12

Mu-ddamalla^{Satyanarayana, S/o. M.Chukkaiah,aged 48 years' Occ-} Agriculture, R/o.^{UlparaVillage, Vongur Mandal,^}

¶13

ii;;;;-sri;ivasutu,^{s/o. Laxirinarayina, aged 59 vears, opc-Agriculture'R/o'} U'li;;r; Village,^{Vongur Mandal, Kalwakurthy Mandal, Nagarkurnool District'}

¶14

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFF^{& RES. /DEFENDANT NO. 1 & 2}

¶15

IA NO:1 OF 2O24

¶16

Petition,Undersectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed^{in support of the petition, the High court rnaybe pleased} !o^grant .iry "f Ji irrtf,Lr^{proceedings in b.S No. 436_ot2021on the file of the Court of} Junior Civil Judge,^{Kalwakurthy, pendingthe CRP'}

¶17

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl. T L KRISHNA PRASAD} Counsel for the^{RespondentNo. 1:SRl'K VENUMADHAV} i"rn."f for the Respondent^{No. 2:SRl. SANGEM SRINIVAS REDDY}

¶18

The Court made the^{following: ORDER}

¶19

¶20

Order:

¶21

'l.,hc (,ivil l{evision Petition is directcd^{against the order of} tlrc lcarncd-f -rnior^{(.ivilJudgeat I(alwakurthy in I'A'No'1381 c>f 2021'} in I.,.Nr).1100^{clf 2()21 in o.S.No.436C,f 2021,,dated16.04.2024,} rvhcrcin, pctitiorr^{t-ilcd undcr order 26, Rule 9 r/w 151 of ('Pc For} app<lintmcnrofirnAdvocateCommissionertoinvestigatethc ph),sical^{fear-urcsof the suit scheduleland withinthe limits of ulapata} Villagc, Vongur^{Mandal, has been dismissed' '}

¶22

2.FIcardSri,t,.L.IftishnaPrasad,learnedcounsclforthe rcvision P(:r-iti(,ncr/dcfendant^{No'3' Sri K' Venumadhar"lcarncd} c<>unscl [r,r^{rcspondentNo.1 /platnttffand Sri SangcmSrinivas} Itccldv,^{lcar:ncclc,unsel for the respondentNo.2/defendant No'1'}

¶23

3..l,acbackgr<lundfactsgivingrisetothefili.goftherer,isi<>n pctiticrn^{ar:e rhat respondent No.1 flrled suit in o'S'N o'436 of 2021} bcforc th,:^{lcarncdTrial courtseekingPermanent iniunctionrvith} rcspcct r()^{sult schedule} ProPerty^{consistingof agriculturalland in} \ )\

¶24

..)..

¶25

Sy.Ncr-60 /F.EI to an exrenr .f Ac.2.00 Gts., situated in l)lpara village, vongur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District appcnded on thc East by vadike Bui" water channel), west: l-and .f J. Bondaiah, North: Land of P. I(rishna Reddy and South:20 ft. Banclla Bata (Cart way). In said suit, I.A.No.1100 of 2021 was filed seeking remporary injunction. In said I.A, the present I.A undcr revision is filed by the respondent No.1 with prayer as follows:

¶26

"For all rhe reason stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon'ble court be pleased to appoint an Advocate commissioner for making investigation the physical features of the suit schedule land situated rvithin the limits o[ ulpara (r), vongur IV{andal and to pass ordcr or .rdcrs as the Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumsranccs oF casc ancl in the interest oI justice."

¶27

The case of the resp.ndent No. 1/ plaintift is rhat shc is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit scheclulc pr<-rperw having purchased it under registered sale deed documcnt No.10509 of 2019, dated 1'6-09.201.9. Further, her vendors have purchzrsed the land under registered sale deed document No.2B62 of 201.6, dated 02.03.201,6. The respondent No.1 claims to be in possession of the

¶28

::3::

¶29

suir schedule^{propcrrvhaving developed it, havingmade it fertile and} cultivaring^{thc samc through her GPif holder-cum-fatherby raising} kandi chceu.^{'t'hc respondcnt No.1 claims that petitionerand} rcspondcn.^{No.2 herein are influential persons having muscle power} and thev^{havc threatened ro occupy the suit schcdule property} forcibly.^{'[hcrefrrrc, tcxedwith thre2r-of dispossession, the suit for} pcrpetual^{iniunction is filed.}

¶30

!:I

¶31

't'he casc o[ the petitioner is that respondent No.t^1s claiming tr^{havc purchased the suit scheduleland from Muddamalla} Ramulamrna^{ancl rcspondent No.2 in the yeat 201,9who in turn} purchasccl^{thc land from} Jaiala^{Bondaiahin the yeat 201'6- According} to thc pt:titioncr,^{thctugh registeredsale deeds Lfc executed,the} vcndors ,r[^{rcspondent No.1 wefe not in possessionof the suit} schcdulc lantl^{and there[ore,said land was not deliveredto} responderrr^{N<>.1. 't'he pleaclingso[ respondent No.1 about raising} kandi ch:nu is^{falsc. There is a ridge in land bearing Sy'No'60} running from^{North to South with four borewellswith rwo borewells} ).in r.vorkirLg condirion and paddy crop is^{raised. There[ore, in order to} )

¶32

I-\ .**-*a1 ..\...''

¶33

Z:4

¶34

ascertain the physical^features, the^{petition is filed to note down thc} 1n phvsical fcature s of land Sv.No.60 /l;.1;.1 to ^n extcnt^of ,\c.2.00cts. of lJlpara Village, Vongur Mandal

¶35

Having considered the^case of^{both partics, the learned't'rial} (.ourt held that in a suit for iniunction, an Advocatc Commissioner cann()t be appointed to locahze^{or note down physicalfeatures o[ thc} suit schcdule properry which^{amounts to collectiono[ e'u'idence.It ts} hcld that the petitioner/deflendant^{No.3 did not plead in the rvritten} statement about physicat features of^{the suit land and otherlands,} therefore, allowing the petition to^{dcmarcate the suit land v,'cluld} amount to collection of cvidence^and .qocs^{bevond thc main relicf. It} is hcld that allowing the petition^{would lcad to pre determinationo[} ttrc dccrec which will be^{passed only after full fledgedtrial. fjurthcr, it} is held that the purq who approaches^{thc Court has tcl} Prove^{hcr casc} and it is not for the petitioner^{and rcspondent No.2 who havc not} filed a countef claim to prove^{their case.Thereforc, the petitic)nwas} dismissed. Aggrieved by the^{same, the revisionis preferred.}

¶36

¶37

T.Inuroundstlfrcr,ision,itispleadedthatthesuitisfiledfor perpctual^{iniunction rvith rcspccttosuit schedule Properw in} Sy.Ntl.60 ll;,1'1t()^{zln cxtcnt<>f ,\c.2.00Gts. of Ulpara Village,Vongur} Mandal.^'l'he iudS,nncnt^{in case berrveenJ' VenkateshwarRao v'} ViiayLakshrni|2017(5)ALT630}isrvronglyinterprctedbythe learncd-l'riaCrlurtthattheappointmentofanAdvocate commissioner^{is fcrr thc purpose of collectiono[ evidence whcn the} relief sought^{is notirrg clorvn phvsical features. In the said casc' the} point^{held was that unfcssfirst commissionef'sreport is expunged'} secc-lnd^{advo,:ate cornmissioncr cannot be appointed.Further, in case} berween^{c. /eerannav. c. venkatachalam {1958 (5) ALT 792,rt} is hcld rhat^{an ,\dr'ocatc(.r>rnmissionercan be appointed without} issuing^{n()ti(-c to thc ()thcrsiclc. -I'hefcare ieveral other'iudgments} which laid^{ctor.vnthc lcual ratio that an Advocate commissioncrcan} bc appoinrr:cl^{rvhcn thcre is disputc in respect of identification,} location anrl^{mcasLrrcmcntoF land which is subiect matterof the suit'} lg) l)trring arsumcnts^{in revision, the learned counsel for the} peutioner^{conrcncledthat the learned Trial Court dismissedthe}

- ..F.#fri \

petition on the mistaken premise that the petition is filed flor thc purposc of collecting evidence rvhcn thc pral,er was for notins clown physical flcarures of the suit schedule properq,. It is argucd thar thc suit is filcd by respondent No.1 seeking perpetual injunction rhough shc is not in actual possession of the suit schedule propertv f-Iorvevcr, the petition to appoint an Advocatc Commissioner r.vas ncver mcant For asccrtaining the persons who are rn possession of thc suit schedulc property, rathe\ the rclief sought is to note down physical fcaturcs and therefore, it is pleaded that the petition ought tcr have bccn allor.ved. [iurther, it is argucd that the burden of proofl is on thc rcspondent No.1 /plainttff ro prove her case but the pctitioner and resp<>ndent No.2 rvho arc deFendants alscl can take steps tcr prove their casc and there is no bar on taking such steps.

¶42

Learncd counsel for the petitioner rclied upon r>rdcrs of Fligh^(.crurt of Judicature at Hyderabad in cases bet'ween laiula

¶43

Koteshwar Rao v. Ravulapalli Masthan Raor and Bandaru

¶44

'zot6^{(1) ALT 134 (s.8.)}

¶45

.,/

¶46

Mutyalu and anorher v. Pali Appalaraiu2. In thc case o[ Jaiula

¶47

Koteshwar Rao (1 supra), it is held that when there is an allegation o[ encroar;hmcnt oF lancl, an Advocate (.clmmissioner can be appointed [or local inr.cstigati()n as mcre oral evidence will not aid eithcr party r() decidc the issuc o[ cncroachment and such ^fl appointmetrt cannot bc said to be for collection o[ evidence as rhe object oI l,rcal invcstigation itselI is to collect evidence. Further, in the case of Bandaru Muryalu (2 supra), it is held that where thcre is controvorslr as to identification, location or measurement o[ the land, local invcstigarion can be d<>nc at ao early stage by appointing an Commir;sio,cr to cnable parrics ro proceed with trial as per report o[ commir;siorcr cvcn in a suit filed sceking permanent injunction. He flurthcr r:clicd on rhc jud.grncnt o[ rhis Court in case between P. Sreedevi v. IVLN venkata Lakshmi Narasimha prasad3,

¶48

whercin it is hcld rhat thc <>biect o[ local invesrigation under order 26, Rulc 9 of^(.1)(, is to cr>llect cr-idencc at the instance o[ the party

¶49

who rclies <>n thc same which evidence cannot be taken in Court but

¶50

(6) ,\LT 26 (s.8.) "'2013 3 zozo (4) ,\LT 433 (D.B.)

J r

::8::

can be taken only from the peculi ar n ture, on rhe spot. I-[e furthcr rclicd on rhc jud5'ment o[ the Hon'ble Suprcmc court o[ India in casc benveen FIaryana'v{aqf Board v. Shanti sarup and others+, whcrcin, it is held that when an application is filed for appoinrmcnr of a local commissioner flor demarcadon of the suit land, the court ought to consider whether in view of nature o[ disputes, whether local commissioner can be appointed for the purpose o[ demarcation of the suit land

¶55

whilc So, the learncd counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that s.le purposc of gettin g an Advocate commissioncr app.intcd is t. collect cvidcnce and such a recoursc cannot bc taken a suit for pcrpctual injunction.

¶56

't'hc main suit is filcd by respondent N..1 herein claiming r<r be orvner and posscssor of the suit schedule land to an cxtcnt of i\c-2.00 (-its., in sy.No.60/LtEl of lJlparu village, vongur N,Iandal. when respondcnt No.l who approached the court is claiming to be

'trtet^{B SCC 671}

i .lLIf&I1

..o..

owner and possessor of the suit schedule properry, the burden of proofl is on her to dischargc thc samc. [)cr c()ntra, the casc of the petitioner arrd rcspondcnt Nr>.2 is that respondent No.1 purchascd the properrv under a rcgistcred salc dced rvithout identifying the land on ground. It is thc contention o[ the learned counsel for the petitioner tlrat the land in Sy.No.60 is orvned b], o.rly rrvo people, one is the petitioner and the other is rcspondent No.2.^'I'herc are no others har,ing possession of the land in Sv.No.60, whereas, respondent No.1 hercin is claiming r() be in possession of Ac.2.00Gts. o[ land in Sv.No.60 /8111. fiurther, thc claim of respondent No.1 about raising; kandi chenu in suit land is disputed. Per contra, thc casc of petitioncr is that rhcrc is a ridgc across the land in Sv.h.lo.(rO demarcating thc boundarv of both the orvners and that thcre zLre fclur borervclls in thc said sun'ey numbcr r>ut of which two borerv,:lls are in working c6ndiuctn and paddy crop is raised

¶62

1.2. In order to ascertain the exisrencc of ridge and paddy crop, an Advocate^{(-ommissioner} is sought to be appointcd. f'he pleadings o[ tlre plaint are very simple to the effect that respondent No.1 is the

¶63

¶64

::10::

¶65

own€fandsheisinpossessitlno[thesuitlandthroughher (}PA/fatlrcrandcultir,aungthesame..l..hcpetitionerandrespondcnt No.2havcdisputc<ltheposscssi<lnofrespondentNo.landhavcalso chimed^{that respondcntNo.1 purchascd the land withoutidenuf'vinu} ongroundinSv.Ncl.60.,I.houghthereisadisputcabout identificationo[theland,thercisnOprayerflclrascertainingthc k>cation^{of the lancl of the petitioner/respondentNo'2on one hand} and the^{lancl of responclentNo.1 on the other hand, mere noting} down^{of physical features without notingdown the location o[ thc} suit survey^{number and thc survev numberclaimed by the petitioncr} and^{respondentNo.2 rvill not come tc.r the aid of the court in} adiuclication^{o[ thc matter.liurthcr, an r\dvocate Commissioner can} be appointed^{rvhen thcre is a claim r>f encroachmentoI certainlan<J} or identificatj,n^{of land bv rhc parrv who approachesthe court.}

¶66

1'3.Inthe.instantcase,thercisnoallegationofencroachtnent on the part o[^{rcspondentNo.1 and there is no allegation <>f any} ambiguity with respect^{to identiw of the suit land by respondent} No.1. In the circumstances,^{it is for respondent No.L to prove hcr} f (l'

¶67

::11::

¶68

case of orvnership and possession. As alrcadv hcld mcrc noting dorvn of physi6al fi:aturcs is not going ro comc r() rhc aid of thc peririoner rvhcn the rcrtl crux oF thc issuc is posscssion ovcr the suit schcdule land.^'l'hcrcfbre, this Court sces no rcason to intcrf-ere with the impugncd older passed bv the learned^{-frial (.ourt.} r\s such, rhere are no merits in the Revision Perition and thc same is liable to be dismissed.

¶69

Ar:cordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming ihe impugned order passcd b), rhc lcarncd Junior Civil Judgc,^{I(ahval<urthv, I.A.No.13B1of 202L in I.i.No.1100<>f 2021,} in O.S.No.436 of 2021 , datcd 1,6.04.2024. No cosrs.

¶70

C,rnsequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶71

closed

¶72

SD/. P. PONNA^KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR

¶73

//TRUE COPY'/

¶74

SECTION OFFICER

¶75

To,