THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1543 of 2011 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.3 of 2008 in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Ongole, against the petitioners (defendants 1 and 2), and respondents 2 to 10, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of Acs.2.11 cents of land in survey No.16/1A and 1B of R.L.Puram Revenue Village, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District. In that suit, it has also filed I.A.No.423 of 2010 under Rule 9 of Order XXVI C.P.C., with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner to (a) note the physical features over the suit schedule property (b) to survey the land with the help of the Deputy Commissioner and (c) to identify and note whether any part of the land of Acs.7.00 in survey No.167 of R.L.Puram was transferred or acquired by examining the relevant documents, mentioned in the prayer. The petitioners opposed the application, by raising several grounds. It was pleaded that such an exercise cannot be undertaken at all in a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. Through its order, dated 17.02.2011, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri Y.V.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the prayer made in the I.A. is beyond the scope of the suit itself and that when the 1st respondent is not sure about the identity of the land, it is just un-understandable as to how they sought the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. He further submits that the 1st respondent wanted the Commissioner to submit report, with reference to the land, which is not the subject-matter of the suit at all. Sri B.Adinarayana Rao, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, submits that appointment of Commissioner is permissible to undertake various exercises depending upon the subject-matter of the suit. Placing reliance upon certain decided cases, learned counsel contends that the endeavour of the 1st respondent was only to place before the Court the actual state of affairs pertaining to the existence of structure over the land. The suit is for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction, in respect of Acs.2.11 cents of land within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule. The title to the land has to be established by pleading and proving the source thereof, in accordance with law. So far as the possession over the property is concerned, oral and documentary evidence can certainly be adduced to establish the same. It is ultimately for the Court to arrive at a conclusion as to who among the parties are in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, irrespective of the finding upon the question of title. It is no doubt true that the trial Court can appoint commissioner to undertake various exercises ranging from noting the physical features to fixation of boundaries. Much, however, would depend upon the relief claimed in the suit. For example, the relief in the suit is for fixation of the boundaries itself, as in E.Achuthan Nair v. P.Narayanan Nair[1], no exception can be taken to the appointment of the Commissioner for fixation of the boundaries. On the other hand, if it is for declaration, as in the instant case, the plaintiff has presumed to be aware not only of his title in respect of the property, but also the boundaries, and seeking appointment of a commissioner to fix boundaries may lead to inference as to the non-existence of cause of action. The endeavour to note the physical features over the land may not be so seriously found fault with, as long as it is limited to the one of supplementing the plea as to possession over the property. This Court is of the view that the relief claimed in the I.A. except the one for noting the physical features on the suit schedule property with different boundaries, rest of the prayers are clearly outside the scope of the suit. Hence, the C.R.P. is partly allowed, setting aside the order dated 17.02.2011, passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.423 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2008, as regards all purposes, excepting the one for noting down the physical features upon the suit schedule property with the boundaries furnished in the plaint, the Commissioner shall not be entitled to undertake any exercise and the same shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving notice to both the parties. It is needless to mention that the parties have to independently establish their respective contentions and the report that may be submitted by the Commissioner, can only be relied upon to supplement them, but not as the sole basis. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 07.07.2011 GJ [1] (1987) 4 SCC 71