Govindhan (Died) 1. Muthammal v. K.P.Natarajan

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 29.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.KUMARESH BABU and CMP(MD)No.17347 of 2025 Govindhan (Died) 1.Muthammal 2.Murugeswari 3.Chitra 4.Rathinakumar @ Rathinavel ... Petitioners Vs.

K.P.Natarajan ... Respondent PRAYER :- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India, seeking to set aside the order dated 27.06.2025 made in I.A.No.03 of 2025 in A.S.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sankar For Respondent : Mr.C.Narendren 1/6

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition had been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 27.06.2025 made in I.A.No.03 of 2025 in A.S.No.15 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Vedasandur.

2.Heard Mr.S.Sankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.C.Narendren, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent herein had filed a suit for declaration and for a permanent injunction restraining the suit mentioned property to be 50 cents. The said suit was decreed against which the petitioners have preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.15 of 2001. In the said appeal, the petitioner had preferred an application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner by contending that the suit scheduled property measures only an extent of 26 cents which was given by way of partition to the respondent. However, at the instance of the respondent in the partition deed, the property had been mentioned as 50 cents instead of 26 cents.

2/6

4. He would submit that the suit scheduled property belong to a larger extent of land from which the father of the petitioners was allotted only 26 cents. Taking advantage of the absence of four boundaries, the respondent falsely mentioned the four boundaries in the suit which would affect the right of other co-owners and other land owners of the larger extent of the property. These aspects had not been considered by the Trial Court and the application had been dismissed by holding that the petitioners have not moved the Trial Court for any such relief and at this present stage, the said application cannot be maintainable. He would submit that such a finding is contrary to the facts and it would only create multiplicity of proceedings. Therefore, he prays this Court to set aside the order impugned and direct appointment of Advocate Commissioner.

5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is true that the respondent had shown in the suit scheduled property the four boundaries. The petitioners have also contested the same by filing a written statement that the petitioners' father has a right to 3/6

26 cents only in the suit scheduled property. But, however, the Trial Court had held that the respondent is entitled for a decree for the entire suit scheduled property. After a full-fledged trial against which the petitioners have preferred an appeal suit in which they have sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. Having failed to substantiate their claim before the Trial Court by oral or documentary evidence, an attempt is being made to appoint an Advocate Commissioner at the appellate stage, as rightly pointed out by the Trial Court, such an application at the stage of an appeal cannot be maintained.

7. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. 29.10.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No NCC : Yes/ No GBA 4/6

To 1.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

2.The Sub Court, Vedasandur.

5/6

K.KUMARESH BABU,J.

Gba and CMP(MD)No.17347 of 2025 29.10.2025 6/6