Madras High Court
Kanjadiar Konar (Died) vs Karupiah Konar (Died)
SA.No.941 of 2000
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI
Monday, the Twelfth day of June Two Thousand and Twenty Three
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice P.VELMURUGAN
SA.No.941 of 2000
1.Kanjadiar Konar (died)
2.Pandi
3.Pappa
4.Valli (Died)
5.Sathaiya
6.Gandhimathi
7.Krishnaveni
8.Maheswari
(Appellants 2 to 8 are brought on record
as Lrs of the deceased Sole Appellant
vide Court Order dated 25.02.22 made in
CMP(MD)Nos.1545, 1547, 1549 and 1552/22)
9.Gopal
10.Valarmathi
11.Rajalakshmi
12.Jayanthi
13.Vanitha ... Appellants
(Appellants 9 to 13 are brought on
record as Lrs of the deceased 4th
Appellant vide Court order dt.26.04.2023
made in CMP(MD)Nos.5461 and 5463/23)
Vs
1.Karupiah Konar (Died)
2.K.Chellammal (Died)
3.K.Ganeshan
Govindan (Died)
4.Pushpam
5.Nesa Vadivel
6.Saravanan
7.Thirugnana Sambantham
8.Priya
9.K.Subramaniyan
10.K.Arumugam
11.K.Alamelu Mangai
12.K.Yasodhai .... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/4
SA.No.941 of 2000
(Respondents 2 to 12 are brought on
record as Lrs of the deceased sole
Respondent vide Court order dt.03.02.2023
made in MP(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2013)
Memo dt.05.06.2023 filed on 06.06.2023 in
USR.No.16378 is recorded as 2nd Respondent
died, and the respondents 3 to 12 who are
already on record, are recorded as Lrs of
the deceased 2nd respondent, vide Court
order dt.12.06.2023 made in SA.No.941 of
2000 by PVJ)
Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against
the Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.1999 made in A.S.No.138 of 1996
on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram by
reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.09.1994 made in O.S.No.61
of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram.
ORDER:- This Second Appeal coming on for orders on this day and upon perusing the Grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of M/s.J.Madhu, Advocate for the Appellant, and of Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate Respondents, this Court made the following order:-
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents admitted that both the parties have purchased half of the extent of 40 x 50 feet. The suit in O.S.No.61 of 1985 was filed for declaration and recovery of possession stating that 12 feet has been encroached by the defendant. The title to the property and the subsequent purchase made by the plaintiff and the defendant for specific extent under the sale deeds are admitted. Under these circumstances, in order to give quietus to the issue, this Court is inclined to suo motu appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure the property and fix the centre boundary.
2. Mrs.M.Anbarasi, Advocate, Enrolment No.2583/2011, Law Chamber No.150, High Court Building, Madurai - 23, Phone No. 9994109782, is appointed as an Advocate Commissioner in this matter. Since the disputed property is only an extent of 40 x 50 feet, the Advocate Commissioner is directed to inspect the suit property on 25.06.2023 at 10.00 am. The learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents are directed to intimate their respective parties about the inspection of the property on 25.06.2023 and make sure the parties are present in the suit property on 25.06.2023 at 10.00 am. Further, the learned counsel on record for the appellants and the learned counsel on record for the respondents are also directed to be present on that day in order to avoid unnecessary litigations.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis The Advocate Commissioner is 2/4 SA.No.941 of 2000 directed to measure the north-south and east-west extent of 40 x 50 feet and fix the centre boundary of the property. If possible, the learned counsel and the parties shall engage men for the putting up bund in the centre. All the above exercises shall be completed on the same day itself. After executing the warrant, the Advocate Commissioner is directed to file a report with his measurement plan on or before 28.06.2023.
3. Fees of the Advocate Commissioner is fixed at Rs.25,000/-. Both the parties are directed to give Rs.12,500/- each to the Advocate Commissioner and they are also directed to bear the travelling expenses of the Advocate Commissioner equally.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed a Memo dated 05.06.2023 stating that the second respondent namely, Chellammal, died on 10.03.2010 and the legal representatives of the deceased Chellammal are already on record. Memo is hereby recorded. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant is directed to file the amended copy of Memorandum of Appeal grounds within a week.
5. Registry is directed to make necessary amendments in the cause title. Further, it is informed that, it is mistakenly printed as A3 died in the Cause list. Registry is to rectify the said mistake.
6. List the matter on 30.06.2023.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS III) // True Copy // 23/06/2023 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) To
1.The District Munsif, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
Copy to
1.M/s.Mrs.M.Anbarasi, Advocate, Enrolment No.2583/2011, Law Chamber No.150, High Court Building, Madurai-23, Phone No.9994109782.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/4 SA.No.941 of 2000
2.The Section Officer, Judicial Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER DATED : 12/06/2023 HEARING DATE : 30/06/2023 ========================== ORDER ========================== SA.No.941 of 2000 Giving direction and etc. as stated within.
MK/23.06.2023 4P 5C https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/4