R.Subbaraj, v. Subbaiah

ORDER The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.96 of 2020 before the Sub Court, Theni. The said suit has been filed by the petitioner for a declaration based on adverse possession.

¶2Before the Trial Court, the respondents, who claimed to be the owners of the suit schedule property, filed I.A.No.3 of 2021 under Order XXVI Rules 9, 10 and 11 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The learned Sub Judge, Theni, vide fair and decretal order dated 02.09.2022, allowed the said application. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under:- ''8.mry; tof;fhdJ vjpHkDjhuH/thjpahy; gpuhJ jgrpy; nrhj;Jf;fisg; nghWj;J tpsk;Gif kw;Wk; nraYWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; Nfhhp jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L epYitapy; ,Ue;J te;j rkaj;jpy; kDjhuHfs;/gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; Nkw;gb 2tJ ,yf;f nrhj;jpidg; nghWj;J tpsk;Gif kw;Wk; RthjPdg; ghpfhuk; NfhhpAk;> nraYWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; NfhhpAk;> epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; NfhhpAk; Nkw;gb nrhj;jpidg; nghWj;J 1 Kjy; 4 gpujpthjpfs; Vw;gLj;jpa fpiua Mtzq;fs; rk;ke;jkhf Nkw;gb Mtzq;fs; nry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd tpsk;Gifg; ghpfhuk; NfhhpAk; jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;L epYitapy; ,Ue;J tUfpwJ. Nkw;gb kDjhuH jug;gpy; gpujpthjpfs; tof;F nrhj;jpidg; nghWj;J nraYWj;Jf; fl;lisg; ghpfhuk; Nfhhp vjpHNfhUhpik jhf;fy; nra;Js;sjhy; jhth 2tJ ,yf;f nrhj;jpy; thjp Vw;gLj;jpa Mf;fpukpg;G fl;Lkhdq;fis mwpe;Jnfhs;Sk; nghUl;L MizaH epakdk; nra;a Ntz;Lk; vd;W Fwpg;gpl;L ,k;kD jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. vjpHkDjhuH/thjp jug;gpy; jhth nrhj;jpd; mDgtk; vjpHkDjhuH trk; ,Ue;J tUtjhfTk;> mjpy; Nkw;gbahH mj;JkPwp Eioe;J fl;blq;fs; vOg;g Kaw;rpj;J tutpy;iy vd;W Ml;Nrgid nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. ,e;epiyapy; jhth 2tJ ,yf;f nrhj;J ahUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk; mjpy; thjp

gpujpthjpfspd;

mDgtk;

Fwpj;Jk;

tof;F tprhuizapd; ,Wjpapy;jhd; jPHkhdpf;f ,aYk;. mNjrkak;> jhth 2tJ ,yf;f nrhj;jpid vjpHkDjhuH/thjp Mf;fpukpg;G nra;J fl;blq;fs; fl;b tUtjhf Fwpg;gpl;L Nkw;gb nrhj;jpidg; nghWj;J thjp Vw;gLj;jpAs;s fl;Lkhdq;fis mfw;w Ntz;b nraYWj;Jf; fl;lis ghpfhuk; Nfhhp vjpHNfhUhpik jhf;fy; nra;ag;gl;Ls;s epiyapy;> Nkw;gb kDjhuH Fwpg;gpl;Ls;s Mf;fpukpg;G fl;blj;jpd; msTfs; Fwpj;J ePjpkd;w MizaH epakdk; nra;J epy msitaH cjtpAld; mse;J mwpf;if jhf;fy; nra;jhy;jhd; mjd; msTfs; Fwpj;J ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F njhpatUk; vd;gjhy; ePjpkd;w MizaH epakdk; nra;J cj;jutpLtNj ePjpapd; eyDf;F cfe;jJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ. NkYk; kDjhuH jug;G fw;wwpe;j tof;fwpQH jdJ thjj;jpd;NghJ Rl;bf;fhl;ba 1] CDJ 2008 SC 1215 dt:16.07.2008, Haryana Waqf Board Vs. Shanti Sarup and others, 2] CDJ 2018 MHC 5583 dt:03.10.2018, Subramani Vs. Velumani, 3] CDJ 2009 MHC 1249 dt:10.02.2009, S.Periyasamy vs. S.Sundari and others, 4] CDJ 2009 MHC 2486 dt:03.04.2008, Karthikeyan Vs. Kannan, 5] CDJ 2014 MHC 1812 dt:12.03.2014, Anwar Batcha & Another Vs. S.Mahuedoom, 6] CDJ 2005 MHC 1144 dt: 01.07.2005, Sivagurunathan Vs. Ramalingam & others, Mfpa jPHg;gpd; nghUz;ikfs; ,t;tof;fpd; nghUz;ikfSf;F nghUe;jf;$bajhf cs;sJ vd;gjhy; kD jgrpy; nrhj;jpidg; ghHitapl;L mwpf;if kw;Wk; tiuglk; jhf;fy; nra;a VJthf MizaH epakdk; nra;J cj;jutpLtNj ePjpapd; eyDf;F cfe;jJ vd ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fUJfpd;wJ.''

¶3The impugned order is assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner cannot be countenanced. It is submitted that the suit is for declaration based on adverse possession. Therefore, the Trial Court has committed an error in appointing the Advocate Commissioner. It is submitted that the intention of the respondents is to divert the attention of the Court from the core issue that is whether the petitioner is entitled for a decree of declaration based on adverse possession.

¶4The impugned order is defended by the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants. It is submitted that the property in question has been assigned by the Government and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim adverse possession. That apart, he claims to have purchased the property from a person, to whom the property was mortgaged by the respondents' uncle, without knowledge of the respondents or their father. It is submitted that the petitioner is putting up construction for setting up a Brick Industry and therefore, it is just and necessary, a report be given. It is further submitted that the respondents have also filed counter claim along with the written statement for recovery of possession, declaration and mandatory injunction, to direct the petitioner to remove the construction put up by him.

¶5I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶6In my view, there is no dispute regarding the physical features of the property and there is also an admission that the petitioner has put up construction and is putting up further construction. If the petitioner is entitled for recovery of possession, he will also be entitled for mandatory injunction. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, dated 02.09.2022, in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.96 of 2020, is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial after framing issues, if the same has not been framed so far and endeavour to pass a final judgment and decree as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 12 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶7This Civil Revision Petition stands allowed with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. NCC : Yes/No

06.04.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No smn2 To The Sub Judge, Theni.

C.SARAVANAN, J. smn2

06.04.2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 06.04.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.10215 of 2022 R.Subbaraj .. Petitioner Versus 1.Subbaiah, S/o.Varadan @ Mookan 2.Veluchamy, S/o.Varadan @ Mookan 3.Perumal, S/o.Varadan @ Mookan 4.Murugan, S/o.Varadan @ Mookan .. Respondents Prayer :- Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 02.09.2022, made in I.A.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.96 of 2020, on the file of the Sub Court, Theni and to allow the Civil Revision Petition. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Jeganathan For Respondents : Mr.P.Arun Jayatram