Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1509 (TS)

Minpoor Bhoomaiah Died Per LRs. v. Abdul Raheem

2025-11-14

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
ORDER : B.R.Madhusudhan Rao, J. 1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, at Jogipet in I.A.No.52 of 2023 in OS.No.48 of 2012, dated 24.02.2023. 2. Petitioners are the respondents-defendants and the respondent is the petitioner-plaintiff in IA.No.52 of 2023 in OS.No.48 of 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-respondents submits that the trial Court ought to have seen that the suit is for simplicitor injunction, no Advocate Commissioner can be appointed in the absence of circumstances warranting appointment and has committed manifest error in allowing the application in the absence of any specific finding recorded in support of the appointment. The learned trial Court ought to have seen that there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the property either with reference to the boundaries or extent of the land and has committed material irregularity in not appreciating the evidence on record with reference to the law governing the subject and it amounts to not exercising the jurisdiction vested in it. The learned trial Court erred in observing that it is necessary to fix up the boundaries of lands in Sy.No.577 and Sy.No.578 with the assistance of a Surveyor, which would amounts to gathering the evidence and to protract the litigation which is not the spirit of the law. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Nerudu Srinivas Reddy and another Vs. Neerudu Sunanda @ Sunanda Reddy @ Sripathy Sunanda Reddy , [ 2016 (3) ALD 49 ] , (2) Naseeb Deen and Another Vs. Harnek Singh , [ AIR 2019 HP 173 ] 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of lands in Sy.Nos.577 and 578 and the Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and the interference of the Court should be if an error apparent on the face of the record much less an error of law. Counsel further submits that DW.1 in his cross-examination has stated that there is no connection with the land in Sy.No.577 and suit land i.e., Sy.No.578. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Mohd. Counsel further submits that DW.1 in his cross-examination has stated that there is no connection with the land in Sy.No.577 and suit land i.e., Sy.No.578. Counsel to substantiate his contention has relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Mohd. Yunus Vs. Mohd. Mustaqim and Others , [1983 Supreme(SC) 319] , (2) Ouseph Mathai & Others Vs. M.Abdul Khadir , [2001 Supreme(SC) 1540] , (3) Varala Ramachandra Reddy Vs. Mekala Yadi Reddy [CRP No.186 of 2010 dated 02.06.2010 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad], (4) M.Yadaiah and another Vs. M.Chilkamma and two others [CRP No.294 of 2018 dated 02.12.2021 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad], (5) G.Surender Reddy Vs. Smt.M.Lakshmi , [ 2024 Supreme(Online)(TEL) 26025 ] 5. Supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to the extent that if the orders passed by the learned trial Court are error apparent on the face of the record and extraordinary powers shall not be exercised in a routine manner. See Mohd. Yunus(supra)and Ouseph Mathai’s case(supra) 6.1. Respondent is the plaintiff in OS.No.48 of 2012, he filed the suit for perpetual injunction stating that he raised maize and redgram crop and the petitioners-respondents-defendants tried to damage the crop on 08.10.2012 and he tried to resist them with the help of adjacent land holders. The suit schedule property is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.578 admeasuring Ac.03-00 guntas situated at Chintakunta Village of Andole Mandal, Medak District with specific boundaries. 6.2. It is the further case of the respondent-petitioner-plaintiff in the plaint that the total extent of the land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.03-19 guntas, out of which he has purchased an extent of Ac.03-00 guntas under registered document No.2141/1987 from Minpoor Shivaiah who is none other than the father of the petitioner No.1-respondent No.1-defendant No.1. 7. Petitioners who are the defendants in the suit filed their written statement contending that the boundaries in the sale deed are different with the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property and that the petitioner No.1-respondent No.1-defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of agricultural land in Sy.No.577 admeasuring Acs.03-18 guntas and the plaint schedule property is part and parcel of the petitioner No.1-respondent No.1-defendant No.1 land. 8.1. In Nerudu Srinivas Reddy’s case (supra), the High Court observed that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner at belated stage cannot be granted. 8.1. In Nerudu Srinivas Reddy’s case (supra), the High Court observed that the appointment of Advocate Commissioner at belated stage cannot be granted. 8.2. In Naseeb Deen’s case(supra), the High Court observed that the Court has to be satisfied that a local investigation is necessary for the purpose of elucidating any matter in dispute. 9. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the respondent-petitioner- plaintiff in IA.No.52 of 2023 which goes to show that the total extent of land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.03-19 guntas and the total extent of the land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.06-00 guntas. The affidavit further goes to show that petitioner No.2-respondent No.2-defendant No.2 is examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3 and in the cross- examination he stated that the total extent of land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.06-00 guntas out of which he is in possession of Acs.03-00 guntas and the remaining Acs.03-00 guntas is in possession of one Shakeer and there is no connection with the land of Sy.No.577 to the suit land. 10. The cross-examination of DW.1 (petitioner No.2 herein) goes to show that the entire extent of land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.06-00 guntas and there is no connection with the land of Sy.No.577 to that of the suit land (i.e., Sy.No.578). 11. The prayer in the application i.e., IA.No.52 of 2023 is to fix the boundaries of Sy.Nos.577 and 578. As stated supra that the total extent of land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.03-19 guntas and the total extent of land in Sy.No.578 is to an extent of Acs.06-00 guntas. The learned trial Court has lost sight of the same and the prayer made in the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is to fix the boundaries of Sy.Nos.577 and 578. There is no point in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries of Sy.Nos.577 and 578 in view of the fact that the alleged claim made by the respondent- petitioner-plaintiff is to an extent of Acs.03-00 guntas in Sy.No.578 and the total extent of land in Sy.No.578 is Acs.06-00 guntas. No useful purpose will be served in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries. As the evidence of the parties is already concluded and the respondent-plaintiff has to establish his case basing on the evidence and the documents filed thereon as the suit is for perpetual injunction. 12.1. No useful purpose will be served in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries. As the evidence of the parties is already concluded and the respondent-plaintiff has to establish his case basing on the evidence and the documents filed thereon as the suit is for perpetual injunction. 12.1. The decision in Varala Ramachandra Reddy(supra)is not applicable to the case on hand as the properties of both the parties are in the same survey number and the defendants therein have disturbed the boundaries during pendency of the suit. 12.2. In M.Yadaiah’s case(supra), Advocate Commissioner is appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property more particularly to observe the road that leads from the main road to the land of the petitioner. 12.3. In G.Surender Reddy’s case(supra), Appellate Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to know whether the two properties are different properties or a single property. 13. This Court having gone through the decisions cited by the respondent’s counsel find that they are distinguishable from the facts of the present case and thus the ratio of those cases would not apply in the present case. 14. The orders passed by the learned trial Court are perverse and there is an error apparent on the face of the record which requires interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15. In view of the reasons above, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 16. In the result, CRP is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court in IA.No.52 of 2023 in OS.No.48 of 2012 dated 24.02.2023 is set aside without costs and consequently petition is dismissed. Interim Orders if any shall stands vacated. Miscellaneous application/s stands closed.