::1:: Reserved on : 11.11.2025 Pronounced on : 20.11.2025 Uploaded on : 01.12.2025 APHC010418132025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2111/2025 Between: 1. MUNGAMURI PEDA THIRUPATHAIAH, S/O. GANGAIAH, AGE 68 YEARS,AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. NAGAMPALLI (V) KONAKANAMITLA (M), PRAKASAM (D) 2. SMT. MUNGAMURI SUBBAMMA,, W/O. PEDDA THIRUPATHAIAH, 62 AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. NAGAMPALLI (V) KONAKANAMITLA (M), PRAKASAM (D) 3. MUNGAMURI VELUGONDAIAH,, S/O. PEDDA THIRUPATHAIAH, 46 YEARS,AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. NAGAMPALLI (V) KONAKANAMITLA (M), PRAKASAM (D) 4. MUNGAMURI CHINA VELUGONDAIAH @ MUGAIAH,, S/O. PEDDA THIRUPATHAIAH, AGE 36 ::2:: YEARS,AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. NAGAMPALLI (V) KONAKANAMITLA (M), PRAKASAM (D) 5. SMT. MUNGAMURI RAJESWARI,, D/O. PEDDA THIRUPATHAIAH, 28 YEARS,AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. NAGAMPALLI (V) KONAKANAMITLA (M), PRAKASAM (D) 6. SMT. MUNGAMURI NAGA SAROJAMMA,, W/O. CHINA VELUGONDAIAH, AGE 32 YEARS AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. NAGAMPALLI (V) KONAKANAMITLA (M), PRAKASAM (D) 7. MUNGAMURI KATAMRAJU, , S/O. PEDDA THIRUPATHAIAH, AGE 31 YEARS. AGRICULTURISTS, R/O. NAGAMPALLI (V) KONAKANAMITLA (M), PRAKASAM (D) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. SMT PERLA LEELAVATHI, W/o. Subba Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o. Nagampalli (V), Konakanamitla (M), Prakasam (D) ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toPetitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against LA.No.554/2025 in OS.No.59/2016, Dt. 15.07.2025 the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division)on cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Podili, follovUng grounds apart from the other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the revision Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. ANJANEYA SARMA.M Counsel for the Respondent: 1. ::3:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.2111 of 2025 This Court made the following ORDER: The present petitioners and respondent herein are defendants and plaintiff in the suit respectively. 2. For the convenience of the Court, the parties are referred herein as they referred in the revision petition. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.59/2016 for permanent injunction against the petitioners herein basing upon the registered settlement gift deed dated 18.12.2014 and the revenue record issued in her favour. The case of the petitioners herein is that they acquired the property admeasuring Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.63/4 and Ac.0.52 cents in Sy.No.63/6 situated at Nagampalli Gram Panchayat, Konakanamitta Mandal, Prakasam District through an un- registered possessory agreement of sale dated 25.09.2004. As per the said possessory agreement, the schedule of property was described as two items separately in respect of Sy.No.63/6 as ::4:: well as Sy.No.63/4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent herein with an intention to grab the subject property due to the same surname claiming as his ancestral property got created registered gift deed between the husband and wife and filed present suit for permanent injuction against the petitioners. 4. He further asserts that the father of the first petitioner and grand-father of the other petitioners acquired the subject property through an unregistered possessory agreement in the year 2004 and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He further asserts that as per the possessory agreement, the schedule property was described as two separate schedule items situated in Sy.No.63/4 and 63/6 with separate boundaries. While so, contrary to the physical features of the subject property, the respondent/plaintiff filed suit and shown plaint schedule property as single plot even though two different extents situated in two different survey numbers with different boundaries. As such, to identify the subject property, to come to a proper conclusion and to assist the Court, the petitioners herein filed this present petition seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the physical features and to demarcate boundaries and extent of ::5:: land in different survey numbers with the help of revenue authorities. He further submits that even though the petitioners able to prove before the Court below the subject properties in Sy.No.63/4 and 63/6 are not single plot having common boundaries but erroneously respondent/plaintiff claimed as single plot in his plaint contrary to the ground reality of the property. Therefore, the Court below erroneously rejected the claim of the present application on the ground that the present petition is filed only for collecting evidence on behalf of petitioners/defendants by observing that it is well settled law that Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed by the Court to collect evidence on behalf of parties. It is clear that the petitioners herein want to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to collect evidence on their behalf for which the petitioners are not entitled is contrary to the ratio laid down by this Court in C.R.P.No.1661/2023 wherein this Hon’ble Court observed as under: “7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that localization of the schedule property is very much required for adjudication of the dispute finally and it does not amount to an attempt to find out the possession of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property as observed by the trial Court. 8. In Korada Murali vs. Srinivasa Sahu and Ors, it was held at paragraph No.7 as follows: “In this backdrop, when the material on record is taken into consideration, particularly having regard to the ::6:: order passed by the Trial Court, it cannot be stated that by appointing an Advocate Commissioner for a limited purpose of noting down the physical features, the petitioner would suffer any prejudice. Considering the stage at which the matter is now pending before the Trial Court, when a Commissioner visits and notes down the physical features of the property in dispute, it would certainly obviate necessity of leading any oral evidence. The report of the Commissioner would also preserve evidence for the parties as to nature and ground situation of this property, obtaining on the date of his visit, at the initial stage of the litigation.” Therefore, the order of the Court below is liable to be set aside. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, perused the material placed on record as well as order impugned in this petition. 6. Admittedly the suit is filed for permanent injunction by the respondent herein basing upon the registered gift settlement deed and it’s schedule property as well as revenue records annexed to the plaint. There is a presumption as per the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and attadar Pass Books Act, 1971 that who were issued 1B adangal and other revenue record including Pattadar Pass Books and Title Deeds, the holder of the same is in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. It is well known understanding that, as per Civil Rules of Practice, always in accordance with schedule of ::7:: property of Title deed which is basis for to enforce their property rights. In the present case as canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that the father and grand-father of the petitioners had acquired the subject property through an un-registered possessory agreement wherein the subject extent of Ac.0.40 cents in Sy.No.63/4 and Ac.0.52 cents in Sy.No.63/6 situated at Nagampalli Gram Panchayat, Konakanamitta Mandal, Prakasam District with two different boundaries, as such claiming possession as a single plot is contrary to the ground reality of the subject property would be the perception of the petitioner and basing upon his inadmissible, unstamped document. It is settled law that plaintiff should stand on her title deed and her possession, but would not depend upon the defendant/petitioner documents if any. Therefore, the Court below firstly shall ascertain physical features / demarcation and identification of the property with the help of revenue authorities by appointing an Advocate Commissioner is contrary to the facts in hand that the plaint schedule which is specifically described as single plot with common boundaries acquired as per the registered gift settlement deed through which they acquired the subject property. It is settled proposition of law that, the plaintiff/respondent to prove his ::8:: title and possession over the suit schedule property, if the suit schedule property is contrary to real physical features of subject land, he would lose his rights and relief, as prayed and certainly it is betterment of the defendant/petitioner herein. Further, since the possessory agreement of the petitioners was described two different items with separate boundaries, it cannot be described as single plot and two different survey numbers cannot be contiguous plot is contrary to the settled principles of law. Even though the land in different survey numbers the same may be situated as one contiguous plot. Since the respondent herein filed plaint shown as single plot as per the schedule it is for the plaintiff to establish his possession over the subject property by adducing evidence. It is settled principle of law that in a suit filed for permanent injunction neither of the party can be allowed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for collection of evidence in their favour. Moreover, D.W.1 by filing his chief affidavit supported the suit schedule properties as single plot. 7. Hence, the Court below has rightly held that as per the Order 26 Rule 9 of CPC the necessity for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is its discretionary relief of the Court, can be considered by the trial Court only after the parties have ::9:: adduced their evidence. For more understanding Order XXVI Rule 9 of CPC reads as under: “9. Commissions to make local investigations.—In any suit in which the Court deems a local investigation to be requisite or proper for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute, or of ascertaining the market-value of any property, or the amount of any mesne profits or damages or annual net profits, the Court may issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit directing him to make such investigation and to report thereon to the Court: Provided that, where the State Government has made rules as to the persons to whom such commission shall be issued, the Court shall be bound by such rules.” 8. Therefore, the question of appointment of an Advocate Commissioner would arise only after completion of evidence by all the parties and if the Court feels that the evidence on record adduced by all the parties is not sufficient to record a finding regarding the possession of parties, then the Court below can appoint an expert or commission to arrive at a conclusion and to record a finding. 9. In the instant case, the 1st defendant filed his chief affidavit, wherein it is admitted that the plaint schedule property as a single plot even though it is situated in two survey numbers. The present petitioner No.2 who is the defendant No.2 not adduced any evidence so far. Admittedly the entire evidence was not led by all the parties. At this juncture, filing of petition for demarcation and identification of ::10:: the property with the help of revenue authorities is certainly with an intention to collect evidence in favour of the petitioners/defendants herein and to drag the matter. The Court below rightly held as of now there is necessity and entire evidence not completed and rightly dismissed the claim of the petitioner. In Renuka Vs. Tammanna and Ors1 The High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore held as under: “It is settled position of law that Court Commissioner cannot be appointed to collect evidence in support of a claim. After completion of evidence on both the sides, if it is found that there is any ambiguity in the evidence adduced by the parties, then the Court may appoint a Commissioner for the purpose of clarification of such an ambiguity.” 10. It is settled law that when the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the issue with regard to prayer for permanent injunction, it would not be for the petitioners/defendants to call and pray contra under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. 11. It is further observed that the facts narrated in C.R.P.No.1661/2023 which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not similar and that ratio is not applicable for the present facts of the case. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners herein is nothing but for collection of evidence at this stage before completion of leading evidence by all the parties in a 1 AIR 2007 KANT 133 ::11:: suit for permanent injunction, as such the present petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 20.11.2025 krk ::12:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA C.R.P.No.2111 of 2025 DT: 20.11.2025 krk