HEMRAJ Vs. SURYABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2.) Admit on the following substantial question of law : Whether it is essential to get agreed map in respect of the disputed agricultural lands and if parties cannot agree, whether it is necessary to appoint Court Commissioner preferably Cadestral Surveyor so as to draw such map in respect of disputed agricultural lands for just and proper decision of the real controversy between the parties

(3.) My answer to the above question is in the affirmative as in the cases where dispute is as to boundaries or boundarymarks of the immovable property and when parties do not agree to any map produced on the record, it becomes essential for the trial Court or the first Appellate Court as final Court on finding of facts to ensure that a competent Cadestral Surveyor is appointed as the Court Commissioner to prepare measurement map in respect of the suit properties so that after receiving authentic map or plan from the competent Official on behalf of the State Government, the trial Court is assisted meaningfully with a view to execute the decree that may be passed. Execution of decree is thus facilitated so as to set at rest the real controversy between the parties. Considering the facts and circumstances in the present case, it is clear that the land measuring 3.06 Hectares R, which was identified as land bearing Survey No.1 situated at mouza Mukta, Tq. Maregaon, District Yavatmal was subdivided as Survey No.1/1 and 1/2 and thereafter, it was renumbered as Gat Nos. 5 and 6 respectively. It is also contended that defendant had, in fact, examined one Mr. Manohar as DW 4 who was from the Office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records. It is contended that the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff granting the prayer that, as shown in the disputed map, the land surrounded by alphabets A, B, C, D bearing old Survey No.1/1 and new Gat No.6 be delivered in the possession of the plaintiff.