Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/2718/2023 of S. Petchaimmal Vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR on 8 September 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)No.2718 of 2023
and
C.M.P(MD)No.14184 of 2023
1.S. Petchaimmal
... Petitioner(s)
–
Vs. -
1.The District Collector,
District Collector Office,
Korampallam,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Tahsildar, Toovipuram,
Thoothukudi Taluk,
Thoothukudi.
3.R. Ulagammal
4. . Petchiammal
5. . Parvathy
6. . Kalyani
7. . Ananthi
8. A. ahalingam
9.India Food Exports
Through its Managing Partner G. Satheesh Nair, S/o.P. Gopinathan Nair, The Manor H and C Compound, Mundakkal, West Kollam, Kerala State.
... Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to Set aside the order dated 23.03.2023 passed I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in O.S.No.
98 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi and allow this Civil Revision Petition and thus render justice.
For Petitioner
: Mr.Arun Ramanath
for Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar
For R1 & R2
: Mr.I.Pinatgash,
Special Government Pleader
For R4 to R9
: Mr.M.Muthumalai Raja
For R3
: Died(memo filed)
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.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23.03.2023 passed I.A. No. 3 of 2022 in O.S.No. 98 of 2020 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.98 of 2020, a suit filed for declaration and recovery of possession against the respondents/defendants. The plaintiff claims title over the suit property through one Subbaiah Pillai, who had gifted the said property to the plaintiff's mother, namely, Bakkiyam Ammal. After the demise of Bakkiyam Ammal, the plaintiff claims to have succeeded to the property as her legal heir and asserts her right by survivorship. It is the further case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the UDR proceedings, the plaintiff's property was shown as lying on the eastern side of the defendants' property measuring 93 cents. However, in the present UDR records, the extent of the defendants' property is shown only as 75 cents, and according to the petitioner, an extent of 20 cents belonging to him has been wrongly included in the defendants' property. In order to ascertain the physical features and correct measurements of the suit property, the petitioner sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect and measure the suit property with the assistance of a qualified Surveyor and to file a report along with a plan. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, according to the petitioner, is therefore necessary for effectively adjudicating the dispute between the parties and for determining the actual extent and boundaries of the properties in question.
3. The respondents seriously opposed the said petition contending, inter alia, that the petition seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner had been filed belatedly. According to the respondents, the petitioner had been in possession and enjoyment of the property for nearly 40 years and had never raised any objection with regard to the alleged discrepancy in the extent or boundaries of the property during the said period. It was further contended that the respondents had been properly allotted an extent of 75 cents by the Government and that the said allotment was accepted by the plaintiff, who had been enjoying the property for about 40 years without raising any objection. The respondents further submitted that the plaintiff had neither submitted any objection or sent representation to the Government questioning the said allotment nor challenged the revenue proceedings at the relevant point of time. It was also contended that, after subdivision, the plaintiff's property had been duly identified and subdivided in the revenue records and that the petitioner had not raised any objection to such subdivision. Therefore, according to the respondents, the belated attempt on the part of the petitioner to seek appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was only an attempt to collect evidence and to fill up the lacuna in his case, and hence the petition was liable to be dismissed.
4. After hearing both sides, the learned Trial Court dismissed the said petition by holding that it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish her title over the suit property by producing and relying upon the relevant title documents. The Trial Court further observed that the plaintiff could seek a declaration of his title on the basis of such documentary evidence and that the appointment of an
Advocate Commissioner was not necessary for deciding the suit for declaration and recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the plaintiff has preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for R1 and R2 and the learned counsel for the respondents 4 to 9.
6. It is true that the petitioner has filed the suit seeking a declaration of his title over the suit property, claiming title through Subbaiah Pillai. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish his title by producing the relevant title deeds and other documentary evidence, including the revenue records. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not necessary for establishing or proving the petitioner's title. In the present case, the Trial Court has rightly held that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner is not necessary for deciding the issue of title involved in the suit. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Trial Court warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the above, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 08.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To
1. The Additional District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns C.R.P(MD)No.2718 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.14184 of 2023 08.09.2026