Madras High Court
CRP/6521/2026 of Krishnamurthy Vs Kaliyamurthy on 9 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
CRP Nos. 6521 and 6523 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012365712026}
AND
CMP NO. 28157 OF 2026
Krishnamurthy
S/o.Dhanapalu,
..Petitioner(s) in both
CRPS
Vs
Kaliyamurthy
(died)
1. Thirumurugan,
S/o.Kaliyamurthy,
2. Rajmohan
S/o.Kaliyamurthy
3. The Sub Registrar
Joint I Vridhachalam Sub Registration Office, Cuddalore District.
4. The Tahsildar
Vriddhachalam Taluk Office,
Cuddalore District.
5. The District Collector
Cuddalore Collectorate,
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:34:00 pm )
Cuddalore.
6. Arivazhagan
S/o.Rasu
7. Rajakumari
W/o.Kaliyamurthy,
..Respondent(s) in both
CRPS
Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 20.07.2026 made in
I.A.No.6 and 7 of 2026 in O.S.No.160 of 2017 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Vriddhachalam and to allow the Civil Revision Petition and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.V.Anand
For Respondent(s):
M/s. R.Rajavelan
Counsel For Caveator
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Common Order
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed against the fair and decretal order passed in I.A.Nos.6 and 7 of 2026 in O.S.No.160 of 2017 dated 28.08.2026 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Vriddhachalam wherein the applications filed by the petitioner / plaintiff seeking for issuing supeona to the revenue authorities to produce documents and for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, came to be rejected by the Court below.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:34:00 pm )
2. Heard both sides and carefully perused the materials available on record as well as the order passed by the Court below.
3. The petitioner is the plaintiff, who filed the suit in OS No.160 of 2017 seeking for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and for other consequential reliefs. The petitioner / plaintiff had taken a stand that the respondents 2 and 3 have forged and fabricated a settlement deed and based on the same, they have managed to obtain patta. In view of the same, the petitioner filed IA No.6 of 2026 seeking to issue supeona to defendants 4 to 6 directing them to produce the relevant documents.
4. There was also a dispute regarding Item No.6 of the schedule property raised by the defendant and therefore, to clarify the same, the petitioner filed IA No.7 of 2026 seeking for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct a survey and to mark boundaries and to submit a report before the Court below.
5. The Court below has dismissed both the applications and aggrieved by the same, these Civil Revision petitions have been filed before this Court.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:34:00 pm )
6. The Court below has dismissed IA No.6 of 2026 mainly on the ground that the petitioner / plaintiff had made an allegation as if defendants 2 and 3 have fabricated a settlement deed and obtained patta and there is absolutely no mention either in the affidavit or in the petition as to which documents are sought to be summoned from defendants 4 to 6. The Court below therefore held that such a vague application cannot be allowed.
7. Insofar as IA No.7 of 2026 is concerned, the Court below rendered a finding that the plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction and therefore, the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to establish his right and title and there is absolutely no requirement for appointing an Advocate Commissioner just because the defendants have raised a dispute regarding the item No.6 of the scheduled property. The reasoning given by the Court below while dismissing the applications does not suffer from any perversity warranting the interference of this Court. When the petitioner wants to issue supeona to the official defendants, the petitioner must inform as to what documents are being sought for and for what purpose and that is completely absent in the present case.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:34:00 pm )
8. Insofar as the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is concerned, just because, the defendants have disputed Item No.6 of the suit property, there is no need for appointing an Advocate Commissioner since the petitioner / plaintiff has sought for the relief of declaration and permanent inunction and it can be established only by oral and documentary evidence and not by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. If the defendants have raised any plea, onus of proof is upon the defendants and it is not necessary for the plaintiffs to prove the stand taken by the defendants.
9. In the light of the above discussion, the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from perversity warranting the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the order passed by the Court below is confirmed and these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RKA To
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:34:00 pm )
The Additional Sub Court, Vriddhachalam
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:34:00 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH J. RKA CRP No. 6521 and 6523 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 28157 OF 2026 09-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 03:34:00 pm )