CRP/2542/2024 of ATHAYI AMMAL Vs MANICKAM
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
__________
Page1 of 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
AND
CMP NO. 13324 OF 2024
1. Athayi Ammal
W/o.Late Muthugounder,
Old Door No.3/126, New No.9/148,
Kozhipannarithottam, Karipatty Post, Valapady
Tk., Salem Dist - 636 106.
2. K.M.Selvam
S/o.Late Muthugounder,
Old Door No.3/126, New No.9/148,
Kozhipannarithottam, Karipatty Post, Valapady
Tk., Salem Dist - 636 106.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Manickam
S/o.Lae Sengodagounder,
Kallupalathar Thottam, Kattuvalavu, Karipatty
Vilage, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist - 636 106.
2. Suresh
S/o.Manickam,
Kallupalathur Thottam, Kattuvalavu, Karipatty
Village, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist - 636 106.
3. Marappan @ Somu
S/o.Late Sengodagoounder,
Kallupalathur Thottam, Kattuvalavu, Karipatty
Village, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist - 636 106.
4. Prabakaran
S/o.Marappan @ Somu,
Kallupalathur Thottam, Kattuvalavu, Karipatty
Village, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist - 636 106.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
__________
Page2 of 7
5. Muniappan
S/o.Karuppannagounder,
Ayipalayathur Thottam, Katuvalavu, Kariapatty
Village, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist- 636 106.
6. Tharadevi
W/o. Muniappan,
Ayipalathat Thottam, Kattuvalavu, Karipatty
Village, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist - 636 106.
7. The Tahsildar
Valapadi Taluk Office, Valapadi Tk., Salem
Dist.
8. The Village Administrative Officer
Karipatty Village, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist.
9. The President
Karipatty Panchayathu Office, Kariapatty Post,
Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist.
10.R.Manosuriyan
S/o.Ravi, Panchayat President, Karipatty
Panchayat Office, Karipatty Post, Valapadi Tk.,
Salem Dist.
11.The District Collector
Salem Dist.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Civil Revision Petition filed under Art. 227 of Constitution of India,
praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 18-03-2024 passed in
IA.No.3/2022 in OS.No.380/2021, on the file of the 1st Addl.Subordinate Judge
at Salem and Consequently dismiss the IA Seeking for appointment of advocat e
commissioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
__________
Page3 of 7
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ramajayam
For Respondent(s): Ms.D.Sathya for R1 to R6
Mr.M.Murali,
Government Advocate (AS)
for R7 to R9 & R11
R10 -Service awaited
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in
O.S.No.380 of 2021 by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, the
Revision Petitioners/plaintiffs had preferred this Civil Revision Petition.
2.The learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit t hat
the suit cart track absolutely belong to them, in which, the
respondents/defendants 1 to 6 have no right and title over the cart tr ack nor they
are entitled to use the same. During the trial proceedings, the
respondents/defendants 1 to 6 have filed an application to appoint an Advocate
Commissioner to measure the suit cart track with the help of Surveyor and to
note down the physical features. But, the trial judge without considering the
facts and circumstances, erroneously allowed the application and appoi nted the
advocate commissioner, but it is not necessary to prove the dispute between the
parties. Therefore, he prayed to set aside the findings of trial judge.
3.The learned counsel for respondents/defendants 1 to 6 would submit
that the ‘B’ schedule suit cart track is the only way for ingress and egress and as
on date, the pathway is encroached by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs and they
are always attempting to encroach upon the suit cart track. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
__________
Page4 of 7
appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit cart track and note
down the physical features with the help of Surveyor is necessary and the same
was rightly allowed by the trial judge. Hence, he prayed to dismi ss this Civil
Revision Petition.
4. On perusal of records, the fact reveals that with regard to suit cart
track, as described by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in the ‘ B’ schedule, they
have claimed that the pathway absolutely belong to them and not belong to the
respondents/defendants 1 to 6. They have also made wrong entries in re venue
records classifying the suit cart track as “ epytpay; tz;og;ghij ”, based on which,
they have made wrongful claim. But, the learned counsel for
respondents/defendants 1 to 6 would submit that ‘B’ schedule cart trac k, as on
date, is the only way to reach their land. So, to prove the encroa chment
committed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs, they came forward with the said
application and the same was allowed. Furthermore, the report of Advoc ate
Commissioner is necessary, which would enlighten the court to decide the
dispute between the parties as well as to find out any encroachm ent in the
pathway.
5. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs contended that it is their pat hway,
but in the plaint ‘B’ schedule property, the breadth of pathway was not
specifically mentioned. So, to adjudicate the issue with regard t o ‘B’ schedule,
the appointment of Advocate Commissioner to measure the same is necessar y.
Therefore, the findings rendered by the trial judge in I.A.No.3 of 2022 in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
__________
Page5 of 7
O.S.No.380 of 2021 requires no interference. Accordingly, this Civil Revi sion
Petition is dismissed. The Advocate Commissioner is directed to inspec t ‘B’
schedule property as directed by the trial court and submit a re port within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. However,
the learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit tha t they are
having valid title documents from the year of 1960 in order to prove the ir
exclusive right and title over the suit property. Therefore, liberty is granted to
them to produce the same before the trial court. The trial judge is directed to
consider the same and proceed with the matter without influence of t he order
passed by this court. No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous
petition is closed.
07-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RPP
To
1. The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem.
2. The Tahsildar
Valapadi Taluk Office, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist.
3. The Village Administrative Officer
Karipatty Village, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
__________
Page6 of 7
4. The President
Karipatty Panchayathu Office, Kariapatty Post, Valapadi Tk., Salem Dist.
5. The District Collector
Salem District.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
__________
Page7 of 7
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
RPP
CRP No. 2542 of 2024
AND
CMP NO. 13324 OF 2024
07-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis