The plaintiff is the revision petitioner challenging the order, refusing to appoint a Commissioner in a suit for permanent injunction.
2. The allegations of the plaintiff is that the suit P Schedule property is in possession of the defendant / temple and got it by adverse possession. The plaintiff is enjoying the suit property along with the property described in P Schedule. Now, the appointment of Commissioner is sought for by the plaintiff to note down the physical features to explain to the Court about the possession of the plaintiff.
3. It is settled fact that the commissioner cannot be appointed to find out the factum of possession. The plaintiff has to independently establish the possession in a suit for injunction. There is also no dispute to the measurement or the extent of the land in dispute. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application which does not warrant any interference.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
30.01.2017 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mk To The Sub-Judge, Sub-Court, Rasipuram.
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA.J mk CRP(PD).No.253 of 2017 30.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in