P.RAMASAMY Vs. M.RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.178/2011 on the file of District Munisff Court, Karur, has approached this Court with this revision challenging an order passed in I.A. 410/2011, dismissing his application for appointing a commission for local inspection of the suit property under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC.

(2.) The plaintiff has laid the suit for declaration of his title over 'C'Schedule property in the plaint, which is described as a wall separating plaintiff's property and the property of the defendants on the south. According to the plaintiff he has purchased A and B schedule properties from two brothers and put up a new structure and the wall described in the 'C' schedule is constructed exclusively within the property he had purchased. Hence he has filed an application to appointment a Commission. This was opposed by the defendant/respondent.

(3.) By a cryptic order the trial court has dismissed the petition, on the ground that the plaintiff can prove the title to his property through documentary evidence.