Sarala Jain, W/O Mahaveer Jain, 40 ... vs Sangu Gangadhar, S/O Buchanna, 60 ... on 19 February, 2016
One of the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner is that suit
for
demarcating boundaries is maintainable. In E.Achuthan Nair (10th supra), the
Apex Court held that suit for demarcation of property is maintainable since it
is a
suit of civil nature and cognizance of which is not barred. In the facts of the
above judgment, during pendency of the suit, the trial Court appointed
commissioner to locate boundary in the manner indicated by the agreement
dated 25-09-1960. The commissioner did, in fact, submit a report locating the
boundary. Thus, dispute regarding identification of boundary between two
adjacent land owners is certainly a dispute of civil nature and it is not barred
either expressly or impliedly. Learned counsel also placed reliance on
Ratnamala Dasi and others Vs. Ratan Singh Bawa ; Government of the
State of Orissa, Bhubaneshwar Vs. Jaldu Rama Rao and Company,
Machilipatnam ; M/s. Supreme General Films Exchange Limited Vs. High
Highness Maharaja Sir Brijnath Singhji Deo of Maihar and others ; and
Vemareddi Ramaraghava Reddy and others Vs. Konduru Seshu Reddy and
others . In all the judgments, this Court and other High Courts consistently
held
that suit for demarcation of property is maintainable since cognizance of it is
not
barred under Section 9 of C.P.C. The order under challenge before this Court is
limited to appointment of advocate commissioner for demarcating the property
with the assistance of surveyor and fix boundaries to schedule property.
Maintainability of the suit in a civil Court is not an issue in the subject
matter of
the revision. In those circumstances, this Court need not examine the issue of
maintainability of the suit for demarcation of boundaries of schedule property
etc.,. Accordingly, no finding is recorded.