T.Sivakami v. K.Rajamani (Died) 1. K.Kasiayya
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.09.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and C.M.P(MD)Nos.15051 and 15052 of 2025 C.R.P(MD)No.2529 of 2025 T.Sivakami ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff Vs.
K.Rajamani (Died) 1.K.Kasiayya 2.A.Abdul Rahim 3.M.Kaliyamoorthy 4.Shanmuga Arts, Science and Technology and Research Academy(SASTRA) Deemed to Be University, Represented by its Vice Chancellor Shri R.Sethuraman, S/o. S.Ramachandra Iyer, Office at Sastra University, 5.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Collectorate, 1/7
6.The District Collector, Collectorate, 7.Vanaja 8.Satheesh 9.Anushya 10.Madhana Sundaravalli 11.Amirdhavalli
...Respondents/
2 to 12 Respondents/ 2 to 15 Defendants PRAYER:Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this civil revision petition by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.320 of 2019 dated 02.08.2025 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. For Petitioner : Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar C.R.P(MD)No.2530 of 2025 Murugan ... Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff Vs.
K.Rajamani (Died) 1.K.Kasiayya 2.A.Abdul Rahim 3.M.Kaliyamoorthy 2/7
4.Shanmuga Arts, Science and Technology and Research Academy(SASTRA) Deemed to Be University, Represented by its Vice Chancellor Shri R.Sethuraman, S/o. S.Ramachandra Iyer, Office at Sastra University, 5.The District Revenue Officer, District Revenue Office, Collectorate, 6.The District Collector, Collectorate, 7.Vanaja 8.Satheesh 9.Anushya 10.Madhana Sundaravalli 11.Amirdhavalli
...Respondents/
2 to 12 Respondents/ 2 to 15 Defendants PRAYER:Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to allow this civil revision petition by setting aside the order passed in I.A.No.11 of 2024 in O.S.No.322 of 2019 dated 02.08.2025 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. For Petitioner : Mr.R.T.Arivu Kumar 3/7
COMMON
ORDER
C.R.P(MD)No.2529 of 2025 has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.8 of 2024 in O.S.No.320 of 2019 dated 02.08.2025 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.
2. C.R.P(MD)No.2530 of 2025 has been filed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.11 of 2024 in O.S.No.322 of 2019 dated 02.08.2025 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed suits seeking for declaratory relief and recovery of possession of the suit properties. He submits that the suit properties along with various other properties had been purchased by the fourth respondent herein. Since the suit properties form part and parcel of a larger extent of land purchased by the fourth respondent, it became necessary to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect, identify and measure the suit properties on the basis of the documents with the help of the Surveyor.
4/7
4. He further submits that the fourth respondent is attempting to alter the physical features of the suit properties and therefore, balance of convenience in their favour. However, the Trial Court without considering all these aspects, dismissed the interlocutory applications. Therefore, he seeks interference of this Court with the orders passed by the Court below.
5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the materials available on record.
6. The suits have been filed seeking for declaration to declare that the petitioners are the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties and for declaration to declare that the sale deeds are null and void, and to restrain the fourth respondent herein from putting up any construction in the suit schedule properties. When it is the case of the petitioners that defined properties belongs to them, it is for them to prove that the said properties belong to them and the sale deed which has been challenged can be proved only by the documents. In such events, there is no necessity for an appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the property. The suit schedule describes the property in list with defined 5/7
boundaries.
7. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the orders impugned in these revision petitions. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12.09.2025 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn To 1.The Additional Subordinate Court, 2.The Section Officer Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6/7
K.KUMARESH BABU ,J.
SN 12.09.2025 7/7