The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. T L KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No. 1:SRl' K VENUMADHAV i"rn."f for the Respondent No. 2:SRl. SANGEM SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER R Order: 'l.,hc (,ivil l{evision Petition is directcd against the order of tlrc lcarncd-f -rnior (.ivilJudge at I(alwakurthy in I'A'No'1381 c>f 2021' in I.,\.Nr).1100 clf 2()21 in o.S.N o.436 C,f 2021,, dated 16.04.2024, rvhcrcin, pctitiorr t-ilcd undcr order 26, Rule 9 r/w 151 of ('Pc For app<lintmcnrofirnAdvocateCommissionertoinvestigatethc ph),sical fear-urcs of the suit schedule land within the limits of ulapata Villagc, Vongur Mandal, has been dismissed' '

2.FIcardSri,t,.L.IftishnaPrasad,learnedcounsclforthe rcvision P(:r-iti(,ncr/dcfendant No'3' Sri K' Venumadhar" lcarncd c<>unscl [r,r rcspondent No.1 /platnttff and Sri Sangcm Srinivas Itccldv, lcar:nccl c,unsel for the respondent No.2/defendant No'1'

3..l,acbackgr<lundfactsgivingrisetothefili.goftherer,isi<>n pctiticrn ar:e rhat respondent No.1 flrled suit in o'S'N o'436 of 2021 bcforc th,: lcarncd Trial court seeking Permanent iniunction rvith rcspcct r() sult schedule ProPerty consisting of agricultural land in \\ )\ ..).. Sy.Ncr-60 /F.EI to an exrenr .f Ac.2.00 Gts., situated in l)lpara village, vongur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District appcnded on thc East by vadike Bui" water channel), west: l-and .f J. Bondaiah, North: Land of P. I(rishna Reddy and South:20 ft. Banclla Bata (Cart way). In said suit, I.A.No.1100 of 2021 was filed seeking remporary injunction. In said I.A, the present I.A undcr revision is filed by the respondent No.1 with prayer as follows: "For all rhe reason stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon'ble court be pleased to appoint an Advocate commissioner for making investigation the physical features of the suit schedule land situated rvithin the limits o[ ulpara (r), vongur IV{andal and to pass ordcr or .rdcrs as the Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumsranccs oF casc ancl in the interest oI justice."

4. The case of the resp.ndent No. 1/ plaintift is rhat shc is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit scheclulc pr<-rperw having purchased it under registered sale deed documcnt No.10509 of 2019, dated 1'6-09.201.9. Further, her vendors have purchzrsed the land under registered sale deed document No.2B62 of 201.6, dated

02.03.201,6. The respondent No.1 claims to be in possession of the ::3:: suir schedule propcrrv having developed it, having made it fertile and cultivaring thc samc through her GPif holder-cum-father by raising kandi chceu. 't'hc respondcnt No.1 claims that petitioner and rcspondcn. No.2 herein are influential persons having muscle power and thev havc threatened ro occupy the suit schcdule property forcibly. '[hcre frrrc, tcxed with thre2r- of dispossession, the suit for pcrpetual iniunction is filed.

5. 't'he casc o[ the petitioner is that respondent No.t 1s claiming tr havc purchased the suit schedule land from Muddamalla Ramulamrna ancl rcspondent No.2 in the yeat 201,9 who in turn purchasccl thc land from Jaiala Bondaiah in the yeat 201'6- According to thc pt:titioncr, thctugh registered sale deeds Lfc executed, the vcndors ,r[ rcspondent No.1 wefe not in possession of the suit schcdulc lantl and there[ore, said land was not delivered to !:I responderrr N<>.1. 't'he pleaclings o[ respondent No.1 about raising kandi ch:nu is falsc. There is a ridge in land bearing Sy'No'60 running from North to South with four borewells with rwo borewells ).in r.vorkirLg condirion and paddy crop is raised. There[ore, in order to ) \ I- \ ..\\...'' .**-*a1 Z:4 ascertain the physical features, the petition is filed to note down thc phvsical fcature s of land 1n Sv.No.60 /l;.1;.1 to ^n extcnt of ,\c.2.00cts. of lJlpara Village, Vongur Mandal

6. Having considered the case of both partics, the learned 't'rial (.ourt held that in a suit for iniunction, an Advocatc Commissioner cann()t be appointed to locahze or note down physical features o[ thc suit schcdule properry which amounts to collection o[ e'u'idence. It ts hcld that the petitioner/deflendant No.3 did not plead in the rvritten statement about physicat features of the suit land and other lands, therefore, allowing the petition to dcmarcate the suit land v,'cluld amount to collection of cvidence and .qocs bevond thc main relicf. It is hcld that allowing the petition would lcad to pre determination o[ ttrc dccrec which will be passed only after full fledged trial. fjurthcr, it is held that the purq who approaches thc Court has tcl Prove hcr casc and it is not for the petitioner and rcspondent No.2 who havc not filed a countef claim to prove their case. Thereforc, the petitic)n was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the revision is preferred. - 5 T.Inuroundstlfrcr,ision,itispleadedthatthesuitisfiledfor perpctual iniunction rvith rcspcct to suit schedule Properw in Sy.Ntl.60 ll;,1'1t() zln cxtcnt <>f ,\c.2.00Gts. of Ulpara Village, Vongur iudS,nncnt in case berrveen J' Venkateshwar Rao v' Mandal. 'l'he ViiayLakshrni|2017(5)ALT630}isrvronglyinterprctedbythe learncd-l'riaCrlurtthattheappointmentofanAdvocate commissioner is fcrr thc purpose of collection o[ evidence whcn the relief sought is notirrg clorvn phvsical features. In the said casc' the point held was that unfcss first commissionef's report is expunged' secc-lnd advo,:ate cornmissioncr cannot be appointed. Further, in case berween c. \/eeranna v. c. venkatachalam {1958 (5) ALT 792\,rt is hcld rhat an ,\dr'ocatc (.r>rnmissioner can be appointed without -I'hefc are ieveral other'iudgments issuing n()ti(-c to thc ()thcr siclc. which laid ctor.vn thc lcual ratio that an Advocate commissioncr can bc appoinrr:cl rvhcn thcre is disputc in respect of identification, location anrl mcasLrrcmcnt oF land which is subiect matter of the suit' l g) l)trring arsumcnts in revision, the learned counsel for the peutioner conrcncled that the learned Trial Court dismissed the \ \- \ ..F.#fri : 6 petition on the mistaken premise that the petition is filed flor thc purposc of collecting evidence rvhcn thc pral,er was for notins clown physical flcarures of the suit schedule properq,. It is argucd thar thc suit is filcd by respondent No.1 seeking perpetual injunction rhough shc is not in actual possession of the suit schedule propertv f-Iorvevcr, the petition to appoint an Advocatc Commissioner r.vas ncver mcant For asccrtaining the persons who are rn possession of thc suit schedulc property, rathe\ the rclief sought is to note down physical fcaturcs and therefore, it is pleaded that the petition ought tcr have bccn allor.ved. [iurther, it is argucd that the burden of proofl is on thc rcspondent No.1 /plainttff ro prove her case but the pctitioner and resp<>ndent No.2 rvho arc deFendants alscl can take steps tcr prove their casc and there is no bar on taking such steps.

9. Learncd counsel for the petitioner rclied upon r>rdcrs of Fligh (.crurt of Judicature at Hyderabad in cases bet'ween laiula Koteshwar Rao v. Ravulapalli Masthan Raor and Bandaru 'zot6 (1) ALT 134 (s.8.) .,/ - Mutyalu and anorher v. Pali Appalaraiu2. In thc case o[ Jaiula Koteshwar Rao (1 supra), it is held that when there is an allegation o[ encroar;hmcnt oF lancl, an Advocate (.clmmissioner can be appointed [or local inr.cstigati()n as mcre oral evidence will not aid eithcr party r() decidc the issuc o[ cncroachment and such ^fl appointmetrt cannot bc said to be for collection o[ evidence as rhe object oI l,rcal invcstigation itselI is to collect evidence. Further, in the case of Bandaru Muryalu (2 supra), it is held that where thcre is controvorslr as to identification, location or measurement o[ the land, local invcstigarion can be d<>nc at ao early stage by appointing an Commir;sio,cr to cnable parrics ro proceed with trial as per report o[ commir;siorcr cvcn in a suit filed sceking permanent injunction. He flurthcr r:clicd on rhc jud.grncnt o[ rhis Court in case between P. Sreedevi v. IVLN venkata Lakshmi Narasimha prasad3, whercin it is hcld rhat thc <>biect o[ local invesrigation under order 26, Rulc 9 of (.1)(, is to cr>llect cr-idencc at the instance o[ the party who rclies <>n thc same which evidence cannot be taken in Court but "'2013 (6) ,\LT 26 (s.8.) 3 zozo (4) ,\LT 433 (D.B.) ,l ::8:: can be taken only from the peculi ar n ture, on rhe spot. I-[e furthcr rclicd on rhc jud5'ment o[ the Hon'ble Suprcmc court o[ India in casc benveen FIaryana'v{aqf Board v. Shanti sarup and others+, whcrcin, it is held that when an application is filed for appoinrmcnr of a local commissioner flor demarcadon of the suit land, the court ought to consider whether in view of nature o[ disputes, whether local commissioner can be appointed for the purpose o[ demarcation of the suit land

10. whilc So, the learncd counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that s.le purposc of gettin g an Advocate commissioncr app.intcd is t. collect cvidcnce and such a recoursc cannot bc taken a suit for pcrpctual injunction.

11. 't'hc main suit is filcd by respondent N..1 herein claiming r<r be orvner and posscssor of the suit schedule land to an cxtcnt of i\c-2.00 (-its., in sy.No.60/LtEl of lJlparu village, vongur N,Iandal. when respondcnt No.l who approached the court is claiming to be 'trtetB SCC 671 J r i 1 I .lLI f& -' ..o.. owner and possessor of the suit schedule properry, the burden of proofl is on her to dischargc thc samc. [)cr c()ntra, the casc of the petitioner arrd rcspondcnt Nr>.2 is that respondent No.1 purchascd the properrv under a rcgistcred salc dced rvithout identifying the land on ground. It is thc contention o[ the learned counsel for the petitioner tlrat the land in Sy.No.60 is orvned b], o.rly rrvo people, one is the petitioner and the other is rcspondent No.2. 'I'herc are no others har,ing possession of the land in Sv.No.60, whereas, respondent No.1 hercin is claiming r() be in possession of Ac.2.00Gts. o[ land in Sv.No.60 /8111. fiurther, thc claim of respondent No.1 about raising; kandi chenu in suit land is disputed. Per contra, thc casc of petitioncr is that rhcrc is a ridgc across the land in Sv.h.lo.(rO demarcating thc boundarv of both the orvners and that thcre zLre fclur borervclls in thc said sun'ey numbcr r>ut of which two borerv,:lls are in working c6ndiuctn and paddy crop is raised

1.2. In order to ascertain the exisrencc of ridge and paddy crop, an Advocate (-ommissioner is sought to be appointcd. f'he pleadings o[ tlre plaint are very simple to the effect that respondent No.1 is the t ::10:: own€fandsheisinpossessitlno[thesuitlandthroughher (}PA/fatlrcrandcultir,aungthesame..l..hcpetitionerandrespondcnt No.2havcdisputc<ltheposscssi<lnofrespondentNo.landhavcalso chimed that respondcnt No.1 purchascd the land without idenuf'vinu ongroundinSv.Ncl.60.,I.houghthereisadisputcabout identificationo[theland,thercisnOprayerflclrascertainingthc k>cation of the lancl of the petitioner/respondent No'2 on one hand and the lancl of responclent No.1 on the other hand, mere noting down of physical features without noting down the location o[ thc suit survey number and thc survev number claimed by the petitioncr and respondent No.2 rvill not come tc.r the aid of the court in adiuclication o[ thc matter. liurthcr, an r\dvocate Commissioner can be appointed rvhen thcre is a claim r>f encroachment oI certain lan<J or identificatj,n of land bv rhc parrv who approaches the court. 1'3.Inthe.instantcase,thercisnoallegationofencroachtnent on the part o[ rcspondent No.1 and there is no allegation <>f any ambiguity with respect to identiw of the suit land by respondent No.1. In the circumstances, it is for respondent No.L to prove hcr f (l' ::11:: case of orvnership and possession. As alrcadv hcld mcrc noting dorvn of physi6al fi:aturcs is not going ro comc r() rhc aid of thc peririoner rvhcn the rcrtl crux oF thc issuc is posscssion ovcr the suit schcdule land. 'l'hcrcfbre, this Court sces no rcason to intcrf-ere with the impugncd older passed bv the learned -frial (.ourt. r\s such, rhere are no merits in the Revision Perition and thc same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Ar:cordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming ihe impugned order passcd b), rhc lcarncd Junior Civil Judgc, I(ahval<urthv, I.A.No.13B1 of 202L in I.i\.No.1100 <>f 2021, in O.S.No.436 of 2021 , datcd 1,6.04.2024. No cosrs. C,rnsequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To, /W

1. The Junirlr Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. 2. One CC to Sri. T L Krishna Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Venumadhav Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Sangem Srinivas Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD tlopies. PM/SA I I I ! I I I HIGH CICURT DATED:,1011012025 ORDERI CRP.No.3156 of 2024 THE S t( { I () t., * 1,'t, r[B 202[ * DISMIS;SING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION I

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. T L KRISHNA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No. 1:SRl' K VENUMADHAV i"rn."f for the Respondent No. 2:SRl. SANGEM SRINIVAS REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER R Order: 'l.,hc (,ivil l{evision Petition is directcd against the order of tlrc lcarncd-f -rnior (.ivilJudge at I(alwakurthy in I'A'No'1381 c>f 2021' in I.,\.Nr).1100 clf 2()21 in o.S.N o.436 C,f 2021,, dated 16.04.2024, rvhcrcin, pctitiorr t-ilcd undcr order 26, Rule 9 r/w 151 of ('Pc For app<lintmcnrofirnAdvocateCommissionertoinvestigatethc ph),sical fear-urcs of the suit schedule land within the limits of ulapata Villagc, Vongur Mandal, has been dismissed' '

2.FIcardSri,t,.L.IftishnaPrasad,learnedcounsclforthe rcvision P(:r-iti(,ncr/dcfendant No'3' Sri K' Venumadhar" lcarncd c<>unscl [r,r rcspondent No.1 /platnttff and Sri Sangcm Srinivas Itccldv, lcar:nccl c,unsel for the respondent No.2/defendant No'1'

3..l,acbackgr<lundfactsgivingrisetothefili.goftherer,isi<>n pctiticrn ar:e rhat respondent No.1 flrled suit in o'S'N o'436 of 2021 bcforc th,: lcarncd Trial court seeking Permanent iniunction rvith rcspcct r() sult schedule ProPerty consisting of agricultural land in \\ )\ ..).. Sy.Ncr-60 /F.EI to an exrenr .f Ac.2.00 Gts., situated in l)lpara village, vongur Mandal, Nagarkurnool District appcnded on thc East by vadike Bui" water channel), west: l-and .f J. Bondaiah, North: Land of P. I(rishna Reddy and South:20 ft. Banclla Bata (Cart way). In said suit, I.A.No.1100 of 2021 was filed seeking remporary injunction. In said I.A, the present I.A undcr revision is filed by the respondent No.1 with prayer as follows: "For all rhe reason stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon'ble court be pleased to appoint an Advocate commissioner for making investigation the physical features of the suit schedule land situated rvithin the limits o[ ulpara (r), vongur IV{andal and to pass ordcr or .rdcrs as the Hon'ble court deems fit in the circumsranccs oF casc ancl in the interest oI justice."

4. The case of the resp.ndent No. 1/ plaintift is rhat shc is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit scheclulc pr<-rperw having purchased it under registered sale deed documcnt No.10509 of 2019, dated 1'6-09.201.9. Further, her vendors have purchzrsed the land under registered sale deed document No.2B62 of 201.6, dated

02.03.201,6. The respondent No.1 claims to be in possession of the ::3:: suir schedule propcrrv having developed it, having made it fertile and cultivaring thc samc through her GPif holder-cum-father by raising kandi chceu. 't'hc respondcnt No.1 claims that petitioner and rcspondcn. No.2 herein are influential persons having muscle power and thev havc threatened ro occupy the suit schcdule property forcibly. '[hcre frrrc, tcxed with thre2r- of dispossession, the suit for pcrpetual iniunction is filed.

5. 't'he casc o[ the petitioner is that respondent No.t 1s claiming tr havc purchased the suit schedule land from Muddamalla Ramulamrna ancl rcspondent No.2 in the yeat 201,9 who in turn purchasccl thc land from Jaiala Bondaiah in the yeat 201'6- According to thc pt:titioncr, thctugh registered sale deeds Lfc executed, the vcndors ,r[ rcspondent No.1 wefe not in possession of the suit schcdulc lantl and there[ore, said land was not delivered to !:I responderrr N<>.1. 't'he pleaclings o[ respondent No.1 about raising kandi ch:nu is falsc. There is a ridge in land bearing Sy'No'60 running from North to South with four borewells with rwo borewells ).in r.vorkirLg condirion and paddy crop is raised. There[ore, in order to ) \ I- \ ..\\...'' .**-*a1 Z:4 ascertain the physical features, the petition is filed to note down thc phvsical fcature s of land 1n Sv.No.60 /l;.1;.1 to ^n extcnt of ,\c.2.00cts. of lJlpara Village, Vongur Mandal

6. Having considered the case of both partics, the learned 't'rial (.ourt held that in a suit for iniunction, an Advocatc Commissioner cann()t be appointed to locahze or note down physical features o[ thc suit schcdule properry which amounts to collection o[ e'u'idence. It ts hcld that the petitioner/deflendant No.3 did not plead in the rvritten statement about physicat features of the suit land and other lands, therefore, allowing the petition to dcmarcate the suit land v,'cluld amount to collection of cvidence and .qocs bevond thc main relicf. It is hcld that allowing the petition would lcad to pre determination o[ ttrc dccrec which will be passed only after full fledged trial. fjurthcr, it is held that the purq who approaches thc Court has tcl Prove hcr casc and it is not for the petitioner and rcspondent No.2 who havc not filed a countef claim to prove their case. Thereforc, the petitic)n was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the revision is preferred. - 5 T.Inuroundstlfrcr,ision,itispleadedthatthesuitisfiledfor perpctual iniunction rvith rcspcct to suit schedule Properw in Sy.Ntl.60 ll;,1'1t() zln cxtcnt <>f ,\c.2.00Gts. of Ulpara Village, Vongur iudS,nncnt in case berrveen J' Venkateshwar Rao v' Mandal. 'l'he ViiayLakshrni|2017(5)ALT630}isrvronglyinterprctedbythe learncd-l'riaCrlurtthattheappointmentofanAdvocate commissioner is fcrr thc purpose of collection o[ evidence whcn the relief sought is notirrg clorvn phvsical features. In the said casc' the point held was that unfcss first commissionef's report is expunged' secc-lnd advo,:ate cornmissioncr cannot be appointed. Further, in case berween c. \/eeranna v. c. venkatachalam {1958 (5) ALT 792\,rt is hcld rhat an ,\dr'ocatc (.r>rnmissioner can be appointed without -I'hefc are ieveral other'iudgments issuing n()ti(-c to thc ()thcr siclc. which laid ctor.vn thc lcual ratio that an Advocate commissioncr can bc appoinrr:cl rvhcn thcre is disputc in respect of identification, location anrl mcasLrrcmcnt oF land which is subiect matter of the suit' l g) l)trring arsumcnts in revision, the learned counsel for the peutioner conrcncled that the learned Trial Court dismissed the \ \- \ ..F.#fri : 6 petition on the mistaken premise that the petition is filed flor thc purposc of collecting evidence rvhcn thc pral,er was for notins clown physical flcarures of the suit schedule properq,. It is argucd thar thc suit is filcd by respondent No.1 seeking perpetual injunction rhough shc is not in actual possession of the suit schedule propertv f-Iorvevcr, the petition to appoint an Advocatc Commissioner r.vas ncver mcant For asccrtaining the persons who are rn possession of thc suit schedulc property, rathe\ the rclief sought is to note down physical fcaturcs and therefore, it is pleaded that the petition ought tcr have bccn allor.ved. [iurther, it is argucd that the burden of proofl is on thc rcspondent No.1 /plainttff ro prove her case but the pctitioner and resp<>ndent No.2 rvho arc deFendants alscl can take steps tcr prove their casc and there is no bar on taking such steps.

9. Learncd counsel for the petitioner rclied upon r>rdcrs of Fligh (.crurt of Judicature at Hyderabad in cases bet'ween laiula Koteshwar Rao v. Ravulapalli Masthan Raor and Bandaru 'zot6 (1) ALT 134 (s.8.) .,/ - Mutyalu and anorher v. Pali Appalaraiu2. In thc case o[ Jaiula Koteshwar Rao (1 supra), it is held that when there is an allegation o[ encroar;hmcnt oF lancl, an Advocate (.clmmissioner can be appointed [or local inr.cstigati()n as mcre oral evidence will not aid eithcr party r() decidc the issuc o[ cncroachment and such ^fl appointmetrt cannot bc said to be for collection o[ evidence as rhe object oI l,rcal invcstigation itselI is to collect evidence. Further, in the case of Bandaru Muryalu (2 supra), it is held that where thcre is controvorslr as to identification, location or measurement o[ the land, local invcstigarion can be d<>nc at ao early stage by appointing an Commir;sio,cr to cnable parrics ro proceed with trial as per report o[ commir;siorcr cvcn in a suit filed sceking permanent injunction. He flurthcr r:clicd on rhc jud.grncnt o[ rhis Court in case between P. Sreedevi v. IVLN venkata Lakshmi Narasimha prasad3, whercin it is hcld rhat thc <>biect o[ local invesrigation under order 26, Rulc 9 of (.1)(, is to cr>llect cr-idencc at the instance o[ the party who rclies <>n thc same which evidence cannot be taken in Court but "'2013 (6) ,\LT 26 (s.8.) 3 zozo (4) ,\LT 433 (D.B.) ,l ::8:: can be taken only from the peculi ar n ture, on rhe spot. I-[e furthcr rclicd on rhc jud5'ment o[ the Hon'ble Suprcmc court o[ India in casc benveen FIaryana'v{aqf Board v. Shanti sarup and others+, whcrcin, it is held that when an application is filed for appoinrmcnr of a local commissioner flor demarcadon of the suit land, the court ought to consider whether in view of nature o[ disputes, whether local commissioner can be appointed for the purpose o[ demarcation of the suit land

10. whilc So, the learncd counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that s.le purposc of gettin g an Advocate commissioncr app.intcd is t. collect cvidcnce and such a recoursc cannot bc taken a suit for pcrpctual injunction.

11. 't'hc main suit is filcd by respondent N..1 herein claiming r<r be orvner and posscssor of the suit schedule land to an cxtcnt of i\c-2.00 (-its., in sy.No.60/LtEl of lJlparu village, vongur N,Iandal. when respondcnt No.l who approached the court is claiming to be 'trtetB SCC 671 J r i 1 I .lLI f& -' ..o.. owner and possessor of the suit schedule properry, the burden of proofl is on her to dischargc thc samc. [)cr c()ntra, the casc of the petitioner arrd rcspondcnt Nr>.2 is that respondent No.1 purchascd the properrv under a rcgistcred salc dced rvithout identifying the land on ground. It is thc contention o[ the learned counsel for the petitioner tlrat the land in Sy.No.60 is orvned b], o.rly rrvo people, one is the petitioner and the other is rcspondent No.2. 'I'herc are no others har,ing possession of the land in Sv.No.60, whereas, respondent No.1 hercin is claiming r() be in possession of Ac.2.00Gts. o[ land in Sv.No.60 /8111. fiurther, thc claim of respondent No.1 about raising; kandi chenu in suit land is disputed. Per contra, thc casc of petitioncr is that rhcrc is a ridgc across the land in Sv.h.lo.(rO demarcating thc boundarv of both the orvners and that thcre zLre fclur borervclls in thc said sun'ey numbcr r>ut of which two borerv,:lls are in working c6ndiuctn and paddy crop is raised

1.2. In order to ascertain the exisrencc of ridge and paddy crop, an Advocate (-ommissioner is sought to be appointcd. f'he pleadings o[ tlre plaint are very simple to the effect that respondent No.1 is the t ::10:: own€fandsheisinpossessitlno[thesuitlandthroughher (}PA/fatlrcrandcultir,aungthesame..l..hcpetitionerandrespondcnt No.2havcdisputc<ltheposscssi<lnofrespondentNo.landhavcalso chimed that respondcnt No.1 purchascd the land without idenuf'vinu ongroundinSv.Ncl.60.,I.houghthereisadisputcabout identificationo[theland,thercisnOprayerflclrascertainingthc k>cation of the lancl of the petitioner/respondent No'2 on one hand and the lancl of responclent No.1 on the other hand, mere noting down of physical features without noting down the location o[ thc suit survey number and thc survev number claimed by the petitioncr and respondent No.2 rvill not come tc.r the aid of the court in adiuclication o[ thc matter. liurthcr, an r\dvocate Commissioner can be appointed rvhen thcre is a claim r>f encroachment oI certain lan<J or identificatj,n of land bv rhc parrv who approaches the court. 1'3.Inthe.instantcase,thercisnoallegationofencroachtnent on the part o[ rcspondent No.1 and there is no allegation <>f any ambiguity with respect to identiw of the suit land by respondent No.1. In the circumstances, it is for respondent No.L to prove hcr f (l' ::11:: case of orvnership and possession. As alrcadv hcld mcrc noting dorvn of physi6al fi:aturcs is not going ro comc r() rhc aid of thc peririoner rvhcn the rcrtl crux oF thc issuc is posscssion ovcr the suit schcdule land. 'l'hcrcfbre, this Court sces no rcason to intcrf-ere with the impugncd older passed bv the learned -frial (.ourt. r\s such, rhere are no merits in the Revision Perition and thc same is liable to be dismissed.

14. Ar:cordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming ihe impugned order passcd b), rhc lcarncd Junior Civil Judgc, I(ahval<urthv, I.A.No.13B1 of 202L in I.i\.No.1100 <>f 2021, in O.S.No.436 of 2021 , datcd 1,6.04.2024. No cosrs. C,rnsequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed SD/. P. PONNA KRISHNA TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To, /W

1. The Junirlr Civil Judge, Kalwakurthy. 2. One CC to Sri. T L Krishna Prasad, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Venumadhav Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. Sangem Srinivas Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD tlopies. PM/SA I I I ! I I I HIGH CICURT DATED:,1011012025 ORDERI CRP.No.3156 of 2024 THE S t( { I () t., * 1,'t, r[B 202[ * DISMIS;SING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION I