C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 and C.M.P.No.28441 of 2024 Bakkiyam .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Balasubramaniyan 2.M.C.Kuppusamy Ramasamy Naiker (died) 3.R.Rajagopal 4.District Collector, Thiruppur District Collector Office, Thiruppur. 5.Revenue Divisional Officer, Revenue Divisional Office, Dharapuram. 6.Thasildhar, Thasildhar Office, Dharapuram. 7.Iyyavu 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 8.Rajendran .. Respondents Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the partly allowed order and decree dated 11.07.2024 in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2016 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Tickember for Mr.R.Rajarajan For Respondents : Mr.M.Guruprasad O R D E R This civil revision petition challenges the order passed by the learned District Munsif, Dharapuram, in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2016 dated 11.07.2024. 2.The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. 3.According to the plaint, the plaintiff's husband R.Rajagopal and one Murugan Pandithar had purchased a property in Survey No.519/7 at Peramiam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. Subsequently, she 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 purchased 1/2 share of her husband by way of registered deed dated 13.12.2000. It is pleaded that there is a borewell in Survey No.519/7 and from the borewell, a cement pipeline runs through Survey Nos.519/6 and 519/5 for irrigation of her lands situated in Survey No.572/1. She claims that she is entitled to a 5/16th share in the borewell and also to the electricity service connection to the said borewell. 4.Summons were served on the defendants. The defendants filed a detailed written statement. According to them, there is no well situated in Survey No.519/7. They pleaded that the borewell is situated only in Survey No.519/6. 5.Since a dispute arose between the parties regarding the identity of the well and its location, the plaintiff took out an application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit property and to submit a report. As there was a dispute regarding the identity, she also sought for a direction from the Court to the Advocate Commissioner to take the assistance of a Surveyor to localize the property. This application was resisted by the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 defendants. 6. The learned Judge found merits in the application and allowed the same on 11.07.2024. However, he directed the Advocate Commissioner to visit the suit property and to submit a report. He found that since the plaintiff had not pleaded that the defendants have encroached upon the property, the question of the Advocate Commissioner taking the assistance of a Revenue Surveyor does not arise. Hence, this revision is at the instance of the plaintiff. 7.I heard Mr.C.Tickember for the civil revision petitioner and Mr.M.Guruprasad for the respondents. 8.The narration of the facts show that the dispute is whether the well is situated in Survey No.519/7, as pleaded by the plaintiff or in Survey No.519/6, as pleaded by the defendants. The learned Trial Judge had rightly appointed an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of localizing the well and to note down the physical features from the well to the lands of the plaintiff situated in Survey No.572/1 of the aforesaid village. However, the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 learned Judge erred in rejecting the prayer for the Advocate Commissioner to be assisted by a Surveyor. Since the revenue records are available with the Revenue Department, all that the Advocate Commissioner can submit is that there is a well and as to who are the beneficiaries of the water that is being pumped out from the well. Without the records, he cannot state where the well is situated. 9.The primary dispute is that the well is situated in Survey No.519/6 or 519/7 cannot be fretted out in a report without identifying it/realizing it. Such a report would not assist the Court in resolving the issue. Therefore, while upholding the order of the learned Judge appointing an Advocate Commissioner, I am inclined to interfere only with respect to paragraph No.5.3 of the impugned order. The warrant issued by the Court shall state that the Advocate Commissioner, shall take the assistance of the revenue authorities, at the time of inspection of the property. The report shall specifically state as to whether the well is situated in Survey No.519/6 or 519/7 of Peramiam Village, Dharapuram Taluk, Erode District. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 10.In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Advocate Commissioner shall take the assistance of a Surveyor and submit a report. Since, the suit is pending from the year 2016, the learned Judge shall give appropriate direction to the Advocate Commissioner to ensure that the inspection and report are filed by February, 2025. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. 21.01.2025 krk Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No To The District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J. krk C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(PD).No.5078 of 2024 21.01.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis