CRP/6403/2026 of Ganesan Vs Mallika on 7 October 2026

ORDER

This civil revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India against the order dated 09.4.2026 made in I.A.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.16 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Pochampalli (for short, the Court below) wherein the Court below, based on the application filed by respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, appointed an advocate commissioner to effect division of the suit properties by metes and bounds for passing a final decree.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. This Court has carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record and more particularly the impugned order.

4. Respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the said suit seeking for the relief of partition, in which, a preliminary decree was passed and it has become final. Under such circumstances, respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the said application seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to effect division of the suit properties by metes and bounds and to pass a final decree. The said application was allowed by the Court below and an advocate commissioner was appointed to measure the suit properties with the assistance of a qualified surveyor, prepare a plan, allot shares to the parties as per the preliminary decree and submit a report along with the plan. This has been put to challenge in this revision by the second defendant.

5. The main ground that was raised on the side of the petitioner is that the suit properties are agricultural properties and that the Court below did not properly consider the applicability of Section 54 and Order XX Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code and rather, the Court below mechanically allowed the said application.

6. In the considered view of this Court, the issue is squarely covered by a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in K.Jaya (a) Jayalakshmi Vs. Padma (a) Padmavathi [CRP. Nos.1633 & 2035 of 2020 dated 30.4.2021] wherein, at paragraph 31, it has been held as follows: “31. In the result, the reference is answered as follows:- If a suit is filed for partition in respect of Estate as defined in the Tamil Nadu Estate land Act, 1908 or under any other Estate Laws which are mentioned under Section 7 of the Tamil Nadu Court Fee and Valuation Act as stood before the amendment by Act of 2017, the civil court after passing the decree declaring the rights of the parties interested in the property shall send the said decree to the Collector as per Order 20 Rule 18 (1) of CPC to divide the property by following the provisions of Sections

54 of CPC. Where a suit is filed in respect of ryotwari land and other immovable properties or movable properties, the court by following the procedures prescribed under Order 20 Rule 18

(2) has to pass preliminary decree and thereafter pass final decree.”

7. In view of the above, the impugned order passed by the Court below appointing the advocate commissioner to measure the suit properties and to divide the same by metes and bounds does not suffer from perversity warranting the interference of this Court.

8. Accordingly, the above civil revision petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected CMP is also dismissed. 07-10-2026 To The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Pochampalli. RS

N.ANAND VENKATESH,J RS CRP.No.6403 of 2026& CMP.No.27574 of 2026 07-10-2026