N V NARASIMHAREDDY Vs. SATPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit O.S. No.1392 of 1984 on the file of the III Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad against the order dated 4-11-1994 passed in LA. No.2094 of 1994..

(2.) The brief facts of the case are: The plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction claiming rights in respect of 250 sq. yards of site in S.Nos.203 and 204 in Lalaguda, Secunderabad. The defendant filed a suit O.S. No.1612 of 1985 for declaration and possession of 500 sq. yards in S. No.207/2 of Lalaguda. The contention of the defendant is that the suit land in this case is part and percel of S. No.203. Therefore he filed an application for appointment of a Commissioner. He also filed LA. No.743 of 1992 in this present suit to appoint the Dy. Director of Survey and Land Records, Hyderabad as Commissioner for local inspection. The Commissioner was appointed. The Commissioner filed his report. When the defendant sought to examine the Commissioner as his witness, the plaintiffs filed the present application (I.A. No.2094 of 1994) to give directions to the present Dy. Director of Survey and Land Records to conduct the survey on the basis of tippons of R.S. Nos.203 and 204 corresponding to old S.Nos.179 and 207, as the Commissioner did not make the survey on the basis of tippons. The Commissioner in his letter stated that S. Nos.207/2, 203 and 204 are old S. Nos. which stand superseded after validation of Town Survey Records in the Twin ci ties and the superseding survey frame-work was totally disturbed and non-exist and demarcation with reference to old S. Nos. is not possible and requested the Court to permit him to demarcate and locate the land. The Commissioner subsequently filed the present report.

(3.) The plaintiffs contend that the plea of the Commissioner that the tippons for old S. Nos. were not available, is not correct because the same Commissioner conducted the survey in O.S.No.722 of 1983 filed by some third parties. The said report is marked as Ex.A-1. In that suit the Commissioner is appointed for local inspection of the suit land and was in existence with structures in S.No.203 corresponding to old S.No.179. In that report also the Commissioner has categorically stated about the position of survey records and the S.Nos.203, 204 and 207/2 corresponding to old S.Nos.179 and 180 are not in vogue and he took the reference of tippons of S.Nos.203, 204 and 207. Therefore it is clear from the report of the Commissioner that even in 1988 itself the position and existence of survey records. The plaintiffs have participated in the entire proceedings of execution of Commissioner's warrant. The plaintiffs never raised any objection about relying on Town Survey by the Commissioner. Therefore the Court below opined that the plaintiffs cannot rely upon the tippons of old S.No. as it is untenable and permitted the plaintiffs to cross-examine the Commissioner. Moreover in the warrant the court below did not mention about the mode of demarcation to be adopted by the Commissioner. The Court below after appreciating the contentions raised by either party, dismissed the said petition. Against that the plaintiffs filed the present revision contending that the order of the Court below is illegal and irregular.