Madras High Court
CRP(MD)/1325/2025 of Sakila Vs Radha on 3 September 2026
C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 03.09.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025
and
C.M.P(MD)No.6871 of 2025
1. Sakila
... Petitioner(s)
–
Vs. -
1. Radha
... Respondent(s)
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 13.03.2025 in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.224 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Kanyakumari at Nagercoil and thus render justice.
For Petitioner
: M/s.M.Maria Vinola
For Respondents : Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram for Mr.D.Nallathambi
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
The civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 13.03.2025 in I.A.No.6 of 2024 in O.S.No.224 of 2019 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.
C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025
2. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.224 of 2019 for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.
3. The revision petitioner/plaintiff states that her mother executed a Will dated 24.01.2007 in her favour in respect of three cents of land. Subsequently, both her parents executed a settlement deed in her favour in respect of five cents of land. Thus, according to the revision petitioner, she is entitled to a total extent of eight cents, which forms part of Schedule-A to the suit property. The parents of the revision petitioner also executed another settlement deed dated 18.01.1994 in favour of the defendant, who is her sister, in respect of an extent of 8.600 cents. According to the revision petitioner, in the meantime, the husband of the defendant/sister trespassed into the property and put up a compound wall. Therefore, she filed a petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit property and note down the alleged encroachment. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the property and filed his report on 14.12.2022. In the meantime, the revision petitioner had also filed W.P.(MD) No.11463 of 2019 seeking measurement of the property, pursuant to which a plan was also prepared by the concerned Government authority.
C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025
4. According to the revision petitioner, the Advocate Commissioner, in his report, had not specifically stated as to whether there was any encroachment by the defendant or her husband. Therefore, in order to raise her objections to the Commissioner's report, she filed I.A. No.6 of 2024 seeking permission to receive her objections. However, the said application was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.
5. According to the petitioner, the Commissioner, during his inspection and measurement of the property, had noted that the defendant was in possession of an extent of 9.500 cents, as against the extent of 8.600 cents covered under the settlement deed. The petitioner contended that the excess extent of 0.900 cents would indicate the encroachment by the defendant and, therefore, she raised objections to the Commissioner's report and filed her objections before the Trial Court. However, the Trial Court dismissed the said petition, observing that the Commissioner had properly measured the property and had duly recorded the relevant details in his report. The Trial Court further observed that the Commissioner had properly answered the points for which he was appointed and, therefore, there was no necessity to receive the objections filed by the petitioner. In the considered view of this Court, the approach adopted by the Trial Court is not proper. When the petitioner has specifically raised an objection with regard to
C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025 the excess extent allegedly found in the possession of the defendant and has sought to bring the same to the notice of the Court by filing objections to the Commissioner's report, such objections ought to have been received and considered along with the Commissioner's report at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.
6. If an aggrieved party has filed objections to the Commissioner's report, it is the duty of the Court to receive the same and consider them at the appropriate stage. In the present case, the only objection raised by the respondent is that the objections were filed belatedly. No other objection has been raised by the respondent warranting rejection of the petition. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the Trial Court ought to have received the objections filed by the petitioner. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is directed to receive the objections filed by the petitioner and consider the same in accordance with law. Whether the objections raised by the petitioner are sustainable or otherwise is a matter to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the parties during the course of trial. The Trial Court shall not express any opinion on the merits of the objections at this stage.
C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025
7. With the above observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.09.2026 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Ns To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Kanyakumari at Nagercoil
2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025 R.POORNIMA
, J. Ns C.R.P(MD)No.1325 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.6871 of 2025 03.09.2026