THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3338 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.122 of 2007 in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool against the petitioners for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The trial of the suit commenced. The respondents filed I.A.No.482 of 2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to measure and demarcate the suit schedule property with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. The petitioners opposed the application. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 01.07.2009. The same is challenged in this revision. Sri K.Suresh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the scope of the suit does not permit such an exercise. He contends that when the respondents are not sure about the boundaries of the suit schedule property, the question of their seeking further relief, does not arise. He further contends that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule property is not permissible in a suit for declaration of title. Sri Somakonda Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that there is some uncertainty as to the boundary between the suit schedule property on the one hand and the lands of the petitioners on the other, and the appointment of the Commissioner would be helpful not only to the parties but also to the Court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion. Two essential requirements in a suit for title and injunction are that the plaintiff must be sure and clear about the nature and extent of the property and that he must be in possession of the same as on the date of filing of the suit. If there is any uncertainty as to the boundaries of the property, the remedy is elsewhere. He can approach the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 and get necessary relief. An application to fix the boundaries of the suit schedule property in a suit for perpetual injunction is totally untenable. This Court held so in Arredla Ram Reddy Vs. Arredla Alivelamma[1]. The order passed by the trial Court cannot be sustained in law. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 16.12.2010. kdl [1] 2004(5) ALD 388