THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3983 of 2010 and 1248 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of an order, dated 13.08.2010 passed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Banganapalle, in I.A.No.176 of 2010 in O.S.No.245 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in C.R.P.No.3983 of 2010. The 1st respondent filed the suit against the petitioners and respondent No.2, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. It was in relation to the mining operations over an area leased by the Government in its Mines and Geology Department. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.176 of 2010 for the two-fold relief of (a) appointment of advocate-commissioner, to demarcate the suit schedule property with reference to lease deeds and (b) to assess the alleged damage caused on account of the interference by the petitioners. The application was opposed by the petitioners herein. The trial Court partly allowed the I.A. by appointing an advocate-commissioner to demarcate the suit schedule property, but denied the relief of direction as to assessment of damages. C.R.P.No.3983 of 2010 is filed by the petitioners challenging the order to the extent it has appointed the advocate-commissioner and C.R.P.No.1248 of 2011 is filed by the 1st respondent feeling aggrieved by the denial of relief as to assessment of damages. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The suit filed by the 1st respondent was the one for injunction simplicitor. In a suit of that nature, what becomes relevant is as to (a) whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit, and (b) whether there was any acts of interference by the defendant. Any adjudication beyond these two aspects would become possible, only when the relief of declaration, or mandatory injunction, etc. are prayed for. If there exists any dispute as to the boundaries of the property, the very case of the plaintiff becomes shaky, since he is not aware as to the exact extent and nature of the property in his possession. Disputes in relation to boundaries have to be resolved by invoking the mechanism under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act. The occasion for a Court to appoint Commissioner to demarcate boundaries would arise, only when the specific relief in that regard is prayed for. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent places reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Varala Ramachandra v. Mekala Yadi Reddy[1]. A perusal of the said judgment discloses that the emphasis was more upon the appointment of Commissioner to verify the physical features of the property, as a step towards grant of relief of perpetual injunction. Independently a commissioner cannot be appointed to demarcate the boundaries, bypassing the procedure prescribed under the A.P. Survey and Boundaries Act, or a suit, in which the prayer for demarcation, or boundaries, is incorporated. The said enactment provides for filing of a suit by a party aggrieved by the demarcation undertaken by the concerned authorities. The Advocate-Commissioner will not be in a position to demarcate the boundaries, particularly when the parties to the suit are not in agreement about the source of their title. In the instant case, the petitioners, on the one hand, and the 1st respondent, on the other hand, were claiming their rights under respective leases granted by the Government of A.P. in its Mines and Geology Department. The purport of such lease deeds cannot be evaluated by a Commissioner, nor the Court, in the absence of any relief in the form of declaration. The relief claimed by the 1st respondent for assessment of damages is, on the face of it, out side the scope of the suit. It is only in a suit for damages, that an occasion may arise for such a relief. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the denial of relief by the trial Court to the 1st respondent. Hence, C.R.P.No.3983 of 2010 is allowed and C.R.P.No.1248 of 2011 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dated: 08.06.2011 GJ [1] 2010 (2) L.S. 172