BANU ALIAS BANUMATHI Vs. MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CIVIL Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the Order dated 14.6.2007 passed in I.A.No.25 of 2007 in O.S.No.472 of 2005 on the file Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai. In the application filed by the petitioner/third respondent in the Original Suit, it is alleged that the defendants trespassed upon the suit property on 9.8.2005 and put up thatched house. But these defendant have constructed the thatched house even in 1995, which is a old house, hence the suit property has to be inspected by an Advocate Commissioner and to ascertain the age of the thatched house. Hence an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed.

(2.) IN the counter filed by the plaintiffs it is stated that only to drag on the proceedings and to harass this plaintiff, the petition has been filed. The plaintiff has proved that one Munia Gounder and his sons alone had been in possession for over 25 years. Since the defendants encroached the property, the suit has been filed. The recording of oral evidence was over and when the case was posted for hearing the arguments of the defendants, this petition has been filed, which is not sustainable. Hence the petition has to be dismissed.

(3.) HE also garnered support from another decision of this Court in 1985 (1) MLJ 380 [Ponnusamy Pandaram v. Salem Vaiyappamalai Jangamar Sangam rep. By its President Palanivel], in which it is held that regarding the controversy as to whether constructions being put up by a defendant are within his own land or whether they have encroached into the lands of the plaintiff, a local investigation is the best way to find out the position and the party converting to place the evidence before the Court through local investigation by the commissioner cannot be shut out of that right.