APHC010149332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Fifth day of August, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 965 of 2025 Between: Mogatala Sudarshan Reddy ...Petitioner and M. Raghava Reddy and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai Counsel for the respondents: -Nil- The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.965 of 2025 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 20.02.2025 dismissing the petition in I.A.No.78 of 2025 in O.S.No.137 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI, Rule 9 C.P.C. to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down physical features of the petition / suit schedule property of 20 cents in Survey No.195 of Remata Village, Gudur Sub-division, Kurnool Registration District with the help of the Mandal Surveyor and submit report. 02. The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction and later got the plaint amended by further seeking the reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and declaration of gift deed executed by the defendant No.3 in favour of the defendants No.4 to 9 as null and void and also to grant mandatory injunction to remove all the constructions made in the suit schedule property. 03. In the year 2025, the plaintiff filed the petition in I.A.No.78 of 2025 with the case briefly as follows: The claim of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property is that he asserts right over the eastern part of the land in Survey No.195, whereas the defendants also claim right over the land towards the east, but the defendants admittedly sold the same site in plots to third parties who raised houses and residing therein and thus, the property of the plaintiff is in possession of the defendants which cannot be proved through only oral evidence and therefore, it is necessary to appoint a commissioner. 3 C.R.P.No.965 of 2025 04. The petition was opposed by the respondent No.1 by filing counter and the same being adopted by the respondents No.2 and 3 by one memo and the respondents No.4 to 9 by another memo, contending as follows: The claim of the plaintiff over the eastern part of the land in Survey No.195 i.e., suit schedule property is denied. It is true that the respondents claimed right over the land on the eastern side only and that property was sold to third parties who admittedly raised houses and residing therein. It is false that the respondents grabbed the property. It is denied that an advocate commissioner is needed to be appointed to ascertain truth by noting down physical features of the entire extent of land in Survey No.195 with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. The defendants No.1 to 3 filed sale deed dated 23.03.1910 onwards. It is clear that the eastern boundary is Kunta Katta Chenu. The Mandal Surveyor conducted field inspection and found that the eastern boundary belongs to the respondents. He filed a rough sketch marked as Ex.B2 and photographs marked as Ex.B3. Basing on that report, the sale deed of the subsequent purchasers i.e., the respondent No.3 was executed by the respondents No.1 and 2. The respondent No.3, the purchaser, transferred the property to A.B.M. Church, and then Church was constructed for conducting prayers. The petitioner / plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that there were no boundaries according to Ex.A1 as shown in the plaint schedule property of 20 cents. P.W.1 further admitted that the defendants’ share is 80 cents out of 160 cents of land purchased by his ancestors. Hence, there is no need to appoint any commissioner. Further, P.W.2 also admitted the share of the defendant No.1 in the eastern site and there is Kunta Katta on the eastern side. P.W.2 is one of the attesters of the document of the plaint schedule property. It was also further admitted that there is 4 C.R.P.No.965 of 2025 political rivalry between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 05. After hearing the contesting parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding mainly that the petitioner cannot take aid of the Court in identifying the suit schedule property and that both the plaintiff and the defendants lay claim over the eastern part of the land in Survey No.195 and therefore, it is for the plaintiff to prove the same by placing cogent evidence. The trial Court referred to the evidence which was already recorded during the trial and came to the conclusion that there is no need to appoint a commissioner and dismissed the petition. 06. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition, this revision petition was filed. 07. In spite of service of notice on the respondents No.1, 2, 4 to 7 and 9, none appeared before this Court. The respondents No.3 and 8 died as per the cause title. 08. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. 09. Apart from the oral evidence, since title in dispute over the schedule property can be resolved with the help of identification of the property, features of land with reference to the documents of title of both parties, for better adjudication of the dispute to give a final quietus to the litigation on merits, the trial Court could have appointed a commissioner. A report of the commissioner who inspects the land with the help of the surveyor and examines the features of land with reference to the title deeds of both parties would rather help the Court to arrive at a just conclusion with precision rather than on assumptions or presumptions based on oral evidence which may not always be of facts 5 C.R.P.No.965 of 2025 truly perceived with accuracy by the witness. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the trial Court failed to exercise its jurisdiction. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 20.02.2025 in I.A.No.78 of 2025 in O.S.No.137 of 2014. The trial Court is directed to appoint a commissioner and fix time for submitting report. 11. The trial Court shall fix the fee payable to the commissioner. The plaintiff shall pay the fee to the commissioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Date: 05.08.2025 NSM 6 C.R.P.No.965 of 2025 18 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 965 of 2025 Date: 05.08.2025 NSM