CRP/657/2026 of Samaya Vs Chinnappan

Madras High Court · 2026

Coram: HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

CRP No. 657 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06-04-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI CRP No. 657 of 2026 and CMP.No.3554 of 2026 1. Samaya W/o. Thirupathi, 10-2-35(1), Thirumalaigounder Street, Elampillai Post, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District. 2. S. Palanisamy S/o. Selvi, Gurukkalampalayam, Kandarkula Manickam Village, sankagiri Taluk, Salem District. 3. Chinnaponnu W/o. Rajendran, Gurukkalampalayam, Mangalam Village, Thiruchengodu Taluk, Namakkal District. 4. P. Mahendran S/o. Perumal, 5/737, Sathamapalayam, Edanganasalai Village, Sankagiri Taluk, Salem District. Petitioner(s) Vs 1. Chinnappan S/o. Muniya Gounder, Res. at Vennampatty, Selavadai Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. 2.M. Rathinam S/o. Muniya Gounder, Res. at Vennampatty, Selavadai Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 657 of 2026 3.N. Muniyan S/o. Nainagounder, Res. at Vennampatty, Selavadai Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. 4.P. Velusamy S/o. Palaniappan, Res. at Vennampatty, Selavadai Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. 5.Valliyammal W/o. Srinivasan, 242A/4, ULCOMBAI, Danishpet, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. 6.Kuppayyee W/o. Rajendran, 1-9, Malaayagounder Street, Kunchanpalaiyam, Arasiramani, Aalachampalaiyam, Sankagiri. 7.C. Jaganathan S/o. Chinnappan, Vennampatty, Selvadai Post, Omalur Taluk, Salem District. Respondent(s) PRAYER Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of Indi a, prays to set aside the fair order dated 21.08.2025 made in I.A No.1/2023 in OS No.180 of 2020 passed by the Subordinate Court, Omalur. For Petitioner(s): Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondent(s): https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 657 of 2026 ORDER The petitioners have filed this Civil Revision Petition, praying to set aside the fair order dated 21.08.2025 made in I.A No.1/2023 in OS No.180 of 2020 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Omalur. 2. Challenging the impugned order passed by the trial Judge in I.A No.1/2023 in OS No.180 of 2020, whereby an Advocate Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the plaintiffs, the defendants have preferr ed this revision. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the plaintiffs have sought a declaration of title based on adverse possession. T he suit is contested by the defendants. So far, three witnesses on the si de of the plaintiffs have been examined. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property, which is not relevant to the relief claimed in the plaint. However, the learned trial Judge failed to properly consider this aspect and erroneously appointed an Advocate Commissioner. Hence, he prayed to set aside the sai d order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 657 of 2026 4. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the plaintiffs clai ms title based on adverse possession. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that there exists a thatched house in the suit property, which has been denied by the de fendants. Therefore, the application was filed to note down the physical features. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners argued that a cl aim based on adverse possession does not require a Commissioner’s report, and the same is wholly irrelevant. 6. However, considering the fact that the plaintiffs has asserted t he existence of a house in the property, which is denied by the defendants, there is nothing wrong in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features. Further, in the plaint schedule, the plaintiffs ha s described a “Pannai Veedu” measuring about 400 sq. ft. To establish the existence of suc h structure, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is necessary. 7. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the trial Court. Since the suit is of the year 2020, the learned trial Judge is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months. The Advocate Commissioner is permitted only to note down the physical features. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 657 of 2026 8. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 06-04-2026 Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No rri https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 657 of 2026 To 1.The Subordinate Judge, Omalur. 2.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRP No. 657 of 2026 T.V.THAMILSELVI J. rri CRP No. 657 of 2026 06-04-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis