G SAROJINI Vs. K SRI RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order in I.A.No.1589/1996 in O.S.No.315/1996 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Eluru, dt.27-11-1996 re-directing the Advocate Commissioner who was earlier appointed to make local inspection of the suit schedule property, to identify the same with the aid of title deeds by R.4 and other respondents, is assailed in this Revision Petition.

(2.) The facts in brief are that D.1 to D.3 in O.S.No.315/1996 are the revision petitioners herein. R.1 is plaintiff and R.2 is D.4 and original owner of the plaint schedule property which is 10 Sq. yards in extent and bears D.No. 220-2-10 situated in Powerpet, Eluru. The case of R.l-plaintiff is that he took the said land on lease from the owner through a lease letter dt.15-6-1970 executed by her husband, Sanka Subrahmanya Raja and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same by erecting two sheds thereon. The revision petitioner No.l purchased 249 Sq. yards out of the total extent of 570 Sq. yards under three different sale deeds, executed subsequent to the lease letter dt.15-6-1970. Another extent of 200 Sq. yards therein was also sold to a third party even prior to those three sale deeds. When the revision petitioners started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of R.1, he filed suit O.S.No.315/1996 for perpetual injunction. He also filed LA. No.1517/1996 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for noting down physical features and thereupon, Kum. Swarna Rajyalakshmi, Advocate, is appointed as Commissioner. She visited the plaint schedule site on 6-7-1996 after giving notice to both the parties, but the revision petitioners allegedly brought down the shed highhandedly by the time the Commissioner visited the spot and hence she could not execute the warrant. R.1 filed I.A.No. 1589/1996 seeking a direction to the said Commissioner to identify the site let out to him with the half (sic. help) of the boundaries mentioned in the lease letter dt.15-6-1970 and also to report about the demolition of the said shed. The revision petitioners resisted the petition by filing a counter. It is stated that they have purchased an extent of 249.2 sq. yards of the site and they are making constructions in their own site after obtaining necessary permission from the muncipality and that R.1 plaintiff has absolutely no manner of right or interest in the property purchased by them. The allegation that the revision petitioners highhandedly dismantled the zinc sheeted shed and made it impossible to the Commissioner to identify the plaint schedule site is denied. It is asserted that i R.1 is not in possession of any property adjacent to their site and that the plaint schedule is vague as to the identity of 10 Sq.yards site and hence there are no valid or tenable grounds to give any direction to the Commissioner to identify the site.

(3.) The learned Munsif on a consideration of the above contentions, held that it is difficult to identify the property of 10 Sq.yards unless the site is measured and that it is for the original owner who gave that property on lease, under lease letter dt.15-6-1970 to demarcate the same and hence the owner (R.2 herein) and the revision petitioners are directed to produce the title deeds before the Commissioner for the purpose of identification of the plaint schedule property and the Commissioner in her turn to identify the same. The warrant has been re-entrusted to the same Commissioner for the above purpose.