CRP/4100/2025 of Kandasamy Vs Saroja
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
__________
Page1 of 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-04-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
and CMP.No.21182 of 2025
Kandasamy
S/o. Ramalingam, College Road, Rajaji Nagar,
Kasbah Ariyalur, Ariyalur Dt.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Saroja
W/o. Shanmugam, Koodalur village, Thittakudi
Taluk, Cuddalore Dt. Viruththambal (dead)
2. Karpagam
W/o. Ramasamy, kaadoor village, Kunnam
Taluk, Perambalur Dt.
3. Valarmathi
W/o. Sevaraj, Parpanancheri Village, Ariyalur
Taluk, Ariyalur Dt.
4. Anitha
W/o. Alzhakappan, Serikanpoor Village,
Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur Dt.
5. Ramanathan
S/o. Paramasiva Udayar, Kaadoor Village,
Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur Dt.
6. Sakthivel
S/o. Paramasiva Udayar, Kaadoor Village,
Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur Dt.
7. The Manager
TDCC Bank, Rajaj Nagar, Ariyalur.
8. The Manager
City Union Bank, Vellalar St, Ariyalur branch.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
__________
Page2 of 6
9. The Secretary
Kaadoor Primary Agricultural Co-Operative
Bank, Kaadoor, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur Dt.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, praying
to revise the Fir and Decreetal orders passed in IA No.2 of 2025 in OS No.15 of
2014 dated 04.08.2025 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ariyalur
District.
For Petitioner(s): MR.S.Kamadevan
For Respondent(s): MR.A.V.RAJA FOR RR1 TO 4
R-5 TO R7 - NO APPEARANCE
MR.K.R.Ananda Gomathy FOR R8
MR.A.ANANDAN GA FOR R9
ORDER
Challenging the impugned order passed in IA No.2 of 2025 in OS No.15
of 2014 dated 04.08.2025 on the file of Additional District Judge, Ariyalur
District, the present revision has been filed.
2. Before the Trial Court, the first defendant filed an application in
I.A.No.2 of 2025 seeking to scrap the Advocate Commissioner’s report and to
appoint a new Advocate Commissioner, for the reasons stated in the ground as
under:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
__________
Page3 of 6
“C. The learned Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the
Commissioner report is the basis for passing the final decree and if there are
errors with reference to the extent and the survey numbers, it could not be
corrected or rectified after passing the final decree. It is needless to state that it
is settled law that the Advocate Commissioner is only a facilitator of the Court
and the same is not adjudicatory of the rights of the parties. That being the legal
position, when the discrepancies are pointed out by way of objections, the Trial
Court should not have considered the same in a proper perspective and should
not have dealt with very casually. The discrepancies pointed out by the
petitioner is as follows:
Sl.No Preliminary Decree Discrepancies in the
report
1. As per the preliminary
decree the items 1, 2, 6,
8, 14, 31, 32, 45 & 48 of
Schedule A and C should
be excluded and
remaining items alone
should be partitioned and
allot 1/4th share each to
respondents 2 to 5 herein.
As for as the “B”
Schedule, the suit was
dismissed.
a) The Advocate
Commissioner changed
the Survey number of
45th item from 256/1 as
256/2 and treated the
same as item 46 and
allotted the same to 3rd
respondent. But the 45th
item is excluded from the
partition.
b) the survey No of the
9th item is wrongly shown
as 18/18 instead of 19/18.
c) The item 48 is
excluded property but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
__________
Page4 of 6
shown by the
commissioner and again
allotted to petitioner.
d) Further, the suit was
dismissed in respect of
“B” schedule as per the
preliminary decree but
the same was included by
the Advocate
Commissioner and 1/5
share was allotted to the
petitioner.
”
3. However, the Court below was not inclined to grant such relief and
dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant has
preferred the present revision.
4. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that,
while visiting the property, the Advocate Commissioner excluded the items
which were not covered under the preliminary decree and measured the poperty
with the assistance of the Village Administrative Officer and the Surveyor, and
thereafter submitted the report. It is further submitted that, only in order to drag
on the proceedings, the first defendant has come forward with the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
__________
Page5 of 6
application and that the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the same, which
requires no interference.
5. It is seen that, before the Trial Court, the first defendant had filed
objections to the Commissioner’s Report contending that the property ought to
have been measured with the assistance of the Surveyor. However, a perusal of
the Commissioner’s report reveals that the warrant was executed with the
assistance of both the Village Administrative Officer and the Surveyor, and
thereafter the report was submitted. Therefore, the reasons stated by the first
defendant are not sustainable.
6. The suit is of the year 2014. hence, the parties are directed to work out
their remedies during the course of the final hearing proceedings. Accordingly,
the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits.
7. The Trial judge is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of 3
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
MPA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
__________
Page6 of 6
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
mpa
To
1. The Manager
TDCC Bank, Rajaj Nagar, Ariyalur.
2. The Manager
City Union Bank, Vellalar St, Ariyalur branch.
3. The Secretary
Kaadoor Primary Agricultural Co-Operative
Bank, Kaadoor, Kunnam Taluk, Perambalur Dt.
4. The Section Officer, VR section,
High Court of Madras.
CRP No. 4100 of 2025
and CMP.No.21182 of 2025
28-04-2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis