Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 239 (TS)

Kottala Ashok v. Maisa Bheemavva @ Bheema Bhai

2026-02-05

RENUKA YARA

body2026
ORDER : Renuka Yara, J. Heard M/s. C. Hari Preeth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Jagan, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Perused the entire record. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner/respondent No.2/defendant No.2 aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Nirmal (‘trial Court’) in I.A.No.277 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2021, dated 04.01.2024, wherein a petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the entire land in Sy.No.147/2 situated at Koutla (K) Shivar Village of Nirmal Rural and Mandal and to fix the boundaries and measure the suit land as per registered sale deed and also demarcate Ac.0-08 guntas of land in said survey number by fixing boundaries, has been allowed appointing an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries as per registered sale deeds of both the parties with respect to their land in Sy.No.147 of Koutla (K) Shivar Village of Nirmal Rural and Mandal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 herein is plaintiff and she filed a suit against the petitioner herein and respondent No.2 herein seeking perpetual injunction with respect to suit schedule property consisting of Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.147/2 correlating to Sy.No.147 situated at Koutla (K) Shivar Village of Nirmal District. Respondent No.1 is claiming ownership and possession over the suit schedule property on the basis of a registered sale deed document bearing No.946/1981 dated 23.06.1981. Ever since purchase of the property, respondent No.1 is claiming to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of said agricultural land. While so, respondent No.2 and the petitioner herein have developed an evil eye and are trying to occupy the suit schedule property illegally. The petitioner and respondent No.2 came to the suit land, used force to manhandle respondent No.1 and dispossess her from the suit schedule property and therefore, a suit for perpetual injunction has been filed. In said suit at the time of trial, the petition under revision was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for resolving the dispute between the contesting parties. 4. In the petition under revision, respondent No.1 pleaded that he is claiming ownership and possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 23.06.1981. In said suit at the time of trial, the petition under revision was filed seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for resolving the dispute between the contesting parties. 4. In the petition under revision, respondent No.1 pleaded that he is claiming ownership and possession over the suit schedule property by virtue of registered sale deed dated 23.06.1981. While so, the petitioner is claiming ownership and possession over land at measuring Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.147 and on that pretext trying to encroach and interfere with her property. In order to avoid litigation, there is a need for demarcating the entire land in Sy.No.147, which is to a total extent of Ac.2-7 guntas and fix boundaries. Such an exercise is not collection of evidence, but an exercise taken up to avoid multiplication of litigation. 5. The petitioner herein opposed the petition, stating that he has no knowledge about purchase of land to an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.147/2 by respondent No.1 herein and that the boundaries shown in the suit schedule are false and created for the purpose of case. The petitioner denied interfering with the land which belongs to respondent No.1. The petitioner pleaded that his brother (respondent No.2 herein) and himself have purchased Ac.0-08 guntas of land in Sy.No.147 and land admeasuring Ac.3-08 guntas in Sy.No.148 under a registered sale deed document bearing No.3060/1996 dated 16.12.1996 and are in possession of said land. It is further case of petitioner that respondent No.1 has filed a false suit to knock away their property. Lastly, it is pleaded that in case Advocate Commissioner is appointed to demarcate the suit land it amounts to collection of evidence as such opposed the petition. 6. Upon considering the case of both the parties, the learned trial Court concluded that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner does not amount to collection of evidence since respondent No.1 did not dispute ownership of the petitioner and his brother over Ac.0-08 guntas of land in Survey No. 147 and land admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.147/2. Since there is no dispute about the ownership, the only dispute was held to be that of boundaries and therefore, measurement has to be taken with reference to revenue records. Therefore, it is held that it is just and proper to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation and fixing boundaries on the basis of revenue records. Since there is no dispute about the ownership, the only dispute was held to be that of boundaries and therefore, measurement has to be taken with reference to revenue records. Therefore, it is held that it is just and proper to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of demarcation and fixing boundaries on the basis of revenue records. With that finding, the learned trial Court has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the entire land in Sy.No.147 by fixing boundaries and also to measure the land as per registered sale deeds of the petitioner, respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 over extent of land of admeasuring Ac.1-17 guntas and Ac.0-08 guntas respectively. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred. 7. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the trial Court has allowed the application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries for measuring land by exceeding the jurisdiction and the relief granted is outside the purview of the suit relief. Further, it is pleaded that the reasoning given for clearing the cloud over the extent of land and to ascertain the factual aspect the Advocate Commissioner's appointment is necessary is beyond the scope of pleadings of the suit when the suit is filed for declaration of title, the assumption to clear the cloud over title by ascertaining facts is untenable. Further, it is pleaded that in the case between Koduru Sesha Reddy v. G. Venkata Ram Reddy , 2006 (1) ALD 372 , it is held that a commissioner can be appointed after the evidence is closed. In the judgment of case in Sarla Jain v. Sangu Gangadhar , 2016 (3) ALD 197 , it is held that in a suit for injunction simpliciter, schedule property cannot be demarcated with the help of an Advocate Commissioner as the same amounts to collection of evidence. By ignoring these basic principles, the learned trial Court has allowed the petition. Lastly, it is pleaded that when respondent No.1 claimed to have possession, it is for her to establish her possession and demarcation and fixing of boundaries relates to complex questions of fact which can be decided only in a declaratory suit and therefore, not permissible in a suit filed seeking injunction simpliciter. As such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 8. As such, prayed that the impugned order be set aside. 8. The facts borne by record are that respondent No.1 herein is claiming ownership and possession of land to an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.147/2 of Koutla (K) Shivar Village, Nirmal District. While so, the petitioner and respondent No.2, who are brothers, are claiming ownership and possession of land to an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas in Sy.No.147 and Ac.3-08 guntas in Sy.No.148. It is the case of respondent No.1 that the petitioner and his brother (respondent No.2 herein) are trying to interfere with her possession over the suit schedule land i.e. Ac.1-17 guntas in Sy.No.147/2. Respondent No.1 is not disputing the ownership of the petitioner and respondent No.2 over Ac.0-08 guntas of land in Survey No.147. Therefore, while seeking perpetual injunction in order to avoid further litigation, a petition is filed seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the entire land in Sy.No.147 together with the land of respondent No.1 to an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas and land of the petitioner and respondent No.2 to an extent of Ac.0-08 guntas. 9. The aforesaid facts are not in dispute by either of the parties. The petitioner and his brother i.e., respondent No.2 do not have any dispute with the ownership of respondent No.1 over her property. Therefore, the issue between the parties was only with respect to boundaries and whether or not there was interference by the petitioner and his brother over the land of respondent No.1 or an attempt by respondent No.1 to grab the land that belongs to the petitioner and respondent No.2. 10. In this context, the petition for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is filed for the purpose of fixing the boundaries of the land in Sy.No.147 which includes the land of respondent No.1 to an extent of Ac.1-17 guntas and Ac.0-08 guntas of the land of petitioner and his brother i.e., respondent No.2 herein. Apart from fixing the boundaries for entire land in Sy.No.147 a demarcation of respective properties is also sought. The exercise sought to be taken up by the Advocate Commissioner is not one of ascertaining of possession, but it is fixing of boundaries to avoid boundary dispute. 11. Apart from fixing the boundaries for entire land in Sy.No.147 a demarcation of respective properties is also sought. The exercise sought to be taken up by the Advocate Commissioner is not one of ascertaining of possession, but it is fixing of boundaries to avoid boundary dispute. 11. In that context, this Court in M.L. Srinivas Rao v. J Kurien , 1997 (1) A.P.L.J.61 (SN) , held that Commissioner can be appointed in a suit for permanent injunction to survey and for demarcating the lands and to give his report about the boundaries. Further, in Mende Shekar v. Manchikanti Balaji , MANU/TL/0595/2025 , it was held that Advocate Commissioner can be appointed to note down the physical features of the schedule property in a suit for perpetual injunction. 12. In the instant case, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the purpose of demarcating the boundaries and noting down physical features. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is deprecated when the purpose is of ascertaining possession of respective parties over the subject land. When the suit is filed seeking relief of perpetual injunction claiming to be in possession, the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed to prove the possession as the same amounts to collection of evidence, whereas when possession and ownership are not in dispute, boundaries alone are in dispute, appointment of Advocate Commissioner is permissible as held in M.L. Srinivas Rao and Mende Shekar (both cited supra). As such, the order passed by the learned trial Court does not suffer with any infirmity and there are no grounds for interference, the Civil Revision Petition lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the learned trial Court in I.A.No.277 of 2023 in O.S.No.86 of 2021. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.