THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PEITION No.2180 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.15 of 2008 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty against the petitioners for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The trial of the suit commenced and recording of evidence on behalf of the respondent is completed. The petitioners are about to commence their evidence. At that stage, they filed I.A.No.444 of 2009 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection of Ac.0.10 cents of land in Survey No.198/6, with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, draw a plan and note the existence of houses constructed on that land, duly giving details. The application was opposed by the respondent. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through its order, dated 01.09.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. As observed earlier, the suit is one for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The burden is upon the respondent to prove his title and to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. In case, the petitioners are in possession of the property, they can certainly substantiate the same by adducing oral and documentary evidence. On the other hand, if the third parties are in possession of the property, the petitioners can mention the same during the course of their evidence and if necessary, adduce the evidence of those persons, who are said to be in possession. The question of appointing a Commissioner to note the existence of houses on the suit schedule property, at the instance of the petitioners, does not arise. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.07.2010 kdl