The plaintiff in O.S.No.81 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar, whose application being I.A.No.1542 of 2008 filed under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to take measurements of the lands in question with reference to the revenue records and for fixing of boundary stones to the land of the plaintiff with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor for identification of property under dispute was dismissed, by the order, dated 23.11.2009, approached this Court and filed this Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Admittedly, the petitioner herein instituted the said suit alleging that there is a dispute with regard to the boundaries and the same was numbered as O.S.No.81 of 2007 and in the said suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.1542 of 2008 seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner.

It is mainly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that there was a partition between the plaintiff i.e., the petitioner herein and the vendor of respondents 2 to 4 herein-defendants and if the Advocate-Commissioner is appointed and boundaries are fixed up, everything would be clear.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-defendants opposed the said submissions stating that there is a dispute with regard to the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint and there is also dispute with regard to the possession of the suit schedule property and even if an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed, he cannot submit any report with regard to the possession of the lands in question, hence, the impugned order need not be interfered with.

Heard both sides.

In the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking the relief of declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction, it is stated that there is no dispute with regard to the entire land belonging to the petitioner and the vendor of respondents 2 to 4 herein, but there is a dispute only with regard to the boundaries shown in the plaint.

Apparently, the land originally belongs to one Buchi Reddy and that the petitioner and the first respondent got the said property divided equally between them. Subsequently, the first respondent sold the said property to respondents 2 to 4. So far as the entire land is concerned, there is no dispute that it belongs to the said Buchi Reddy and the said land belonging to Buchi Reddy was already demarcated and the boundaries were also fixed. The only dispute is with regard to the possession of the suit schedule land. It is not known as to which portion of the suit schedule land is in possession of the petitioner or the first respondent. Further, it is also not known as to which portion of the suit schedule land, the first respondent sold to respondents 2 to 4.

The present suit has been filed by the petitioner herein for declaration of her title and consequential permanent injunction over the plaint schedule property. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that even if an Advocate-Commissioner is appointed, as the boundaries are already fixed, he cannot further divide the same and fix up the boundaries. When once the possession itself is in dispute, it is for the plaintiff to plead and establish that he is in possession of plaint schedule property. In fact, after institution of the said suit, some properties from out of the plaint schedule properties were sold. All these circumstances weighed with the Court below in holding that an Advocate-Commissioner need not be appointed and the said finding appears to be correct, which needs no interference by this Court.

Accordingly, I see no merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is dismissed.