Ramesh Vs. Periyathambi

Ramesh vs Periyathambi

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 18, 2014

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1167851

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1167851
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: The Hon'Ble Ms.Justice R.Mala
Decided On: Jun 18, 2014
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh

Respondent

Periyathambi

Excerpt

.....that to ascertain whether the cart pathway is situated in the properties of the plaintiffs or the properties of the defendants?., the appointment of commissioner is necessary to measure the property with the help of a surveyor. but, the said factum has not been considered by the trial court. hence, he prayed for allowing this revision petition.3. i have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and perused the typed set of papers.4. the revision petitioners herein as plaintiffs filed o.s.no.1 of 2012 for declaration of title and injunction in respect of two items of property. in the first item of property, they stated that they are having the right to use 12 feet pathway and also in the second item of the properties, they also stated that they are having the right to use 12 feet width as common pathway on the southern side of the first plaintiff's properties. the 2nd defendant/2nd respondent herein filed a written statement and contested the same, wherein, he specifically denied the title to the suit property and in para-2 of the written statement, he stated that defendants 1 and 2 are having the right to use the pathway in survey no.84/2a and he further stated that along with the plaintiffs, the defendants are also having the right to use the common pathway. in para-4 of the written statement, it was stated that there is a common pathway in survey no.84/2d, i.e. 10 feet and 750 feet, which can be used only for pedestrian and not for taking cart. the plaintiffs/revision petitioners herein came forward with the application for appointment of commissioner for measuring the properties with the help of a surveyor to collect the material evidence.5. it is open to the plaintiffs/revision petitioners herein to approach the appropriate survey department for measuring the properties with the help of the revenue records and to ascertain as to whether there is cart pathway in the suit properties and to let in.....

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:18.06.2014 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA CRP (PD) No.1962 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014 1. Ramesh 2. Alamelu .. Petitioners Vs.

1. Periyathambi @ Mari 2. Chinnappan 3. Chinnaraji 4. Rajee 5. Rajamanikam 6. Pappathi 7. Venkatachalam .. Respondents Prayer : Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Fair and Final Order dated 09.11.2012 made in I.A.No.4 of 2012 in O.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatty, Dharmapuri. For Petitioners : Mr.A.Esakkiappan ORDER

The revision petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1 of 2012, have come forward with this Civil Revision Petition, challenging the impugned order dated 09.11.2012 made in I.A.No.4 of 2012 in O.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatty, Dharmapuri, dismissing the application for appointment of Commissioner filed under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of C.P.C.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submitted that the revision petitioners as plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.1 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatty, Dharmapuri, for declaration of title and also for injunction in respect of two item of properties, wherein, they are having the right to use the common pathway, measuring 12 feet width and to ascertain the same, they filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2012 in O.S.No.1 of 2012 for appointment of Commissioner to inspect the properties with the help of a Surveyor. The 2nd defendant/2nd respondent herein filed a counter objecting the same. After considering the same, the trial Court has dismissed the application, against which, the plaintiffs/revision petitioners herein have filed the present Civil Revision Petition. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners further submitted that to ascertain whether the cart pathway is situated in the properties of the plaintiffs or the properties of the defendants?., the appointment of Commissioner is necessary to measure the property with the help of a Surveyor. But, the said factum has not been considered by the trial Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing this revision petition.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and perused the typed set of papers.

4. The revision petitioners herein as plaintiffs filed O.S.No.1 of 2012 for declaration of title and injunction in respect of two items of property. In the first item of property, they stated that they are having the right to use 12 feet pathway and also in the second item of the properties, they also stated that they are having the right to use 12 feet width as common pathway on the southern side of the first plaintiff's properties. The 2nd defendant/2nd respondent herein filed a written statement and contested the same, wherein, he specifically denied the title to the suit property and in para-2 of the written statement, he stated that defendants 1 and 2 are having the right to use the pathway in Survey No.84/2A and he further stated that along with the plaintiffs, the defendants are also having the right to use the common pathway. In para-4 of the written statement, it was stated that there is a common pathway in Survey No.84/2D, i.e. 10 feet and 750 feet, which can be used only for pedestrian and not for taking cart. The plaintiffs/revision petitioners herein came forward with the application for appointment of Commissioner for measuring the properties with the help of a Surveyor to collect the material evidence.

5. It is open to the plaintiffs/revision petitioners herein to approach the appropriate Survey Department for measuring the properties with the help of the revenue records and to ascertain as to whether there is cart pathway in the suit properties and to let in evidence through the Revenue Authority. But, instead of doing so, the plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed the application for appointment of Commissioner for collecting the material evidence, which is not permissible in law. So, the trial Court has considered the same in para-6 of its order and has come to the correct conclusion. Hence, I do not find any merits in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

6. At this juncture, the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners seeks early disposal of the suit.

7. Considering the same, the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatty, Dharmapuri, is directed to dispose of O.S.No.1 of 2012, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving fair opportunity to both sides. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 18.06.2014 ogy To The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Pappireddipatty, Dharmapuri. R.MALA,J.

ogy CRP (PD) No.1962 of 2014 18.06.2014

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2014 Same Parties Ramesh vs Periyathambi Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Hon'Ble Ms.Justice R.Mala