SELLAPPA GOUNDER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O. S. No. 139 of 2003 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Tiruchengode. Pending suit, the plaintiff filed Interlocutory Application in I. A. No. 795 of 2003, praying to appoint a Commissioner to find out the age of coconut trees which allegedly planted by the petitioner in the poromboke land adjoining to his land.

(2.) THE plaintiff is the owner of the property in Survey No. 134/1 in the suit village and the adjoining area is in survey No. 137/3. Admittedly it is a poromboke land. The case of the plaintiff is that he had planted 20 coconut trees and has applied for 2c Patta. Since no order was passed and since the plaintiff apprehended that 2 (C) patta would be given to somebody else; in order to establish that it is he who planted the coconut trees, he has filed the above interlocutory application for appointment of a Commissioner and the said application was dismissed on the ground that while planting the trees in the canal poromboke, that area is filled up and it affects the free flow of water and the nearby area is flooded during rainy season; and while dismissing the said interlocutory application, the trial Court imposed a costs of Rs. 2000/- payable to Sri Mariamman Temple, Senguttapalayam which is survey No. 137/2. Against the said order, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

(3.) THE Interlocutory Application was filed by the petitioner only for appointment of the Commissioner to find out the age of the coconut trees. Learned District Munsif should have either allowed the application or dismissed the same. There is no reason to impose costs.