IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4213 OF 2010 Between: Mathe Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner A n d Tanneru Rama Rao and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4213 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 04-08-2010 in I.A.No.78 of 2010 in O.S.No.390 of 2006, on the file of the III-Additional Senior Civil Judge (F.T.C), Guntur, wherein the said application filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC, seeking appointment of an advocate- commissioner to inspect the plaint schedule locality and note the physical features and to localize the same with reference to the title deeds and with the assistance of Town Surveyor, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of title over items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property based on two registered sale deeds dated 28.03.2005 and 03.06.2005. The respondents/ defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. According to them, there has been mis-description of the boundaries in the said sale deeds with a view to grab the properties of the defendants also which they have purchased under two title deeds dated 28.12.2001 and another title deed dated 18.10.2004. The defendants further contend that the extent of 379 sq.yards of site which the plaintiff claims to have purchased from Vasireddy Suresh under a registered sale deed dated 28.03.2005 does not exist at all. The respondents/defendants sought appointment of an advocate-commissioner to localize the suit land and also note its physical features as according to them, the boundaries mentioned in the title deeds of the plaintiff are imaginary and the plaintiff is trying to demolish the existing dilapidated structures on the suit property. The petitioner/plaintiff fled a counter opposing the application on the ground that in a suit for declaration of title, the matter has to be decided based on the evidence adduced by both parties and appointment of an advocate- commissioner is not warranted either for localization or for noting the physical features. The trial Court, by the impugned order, appointed an advocate-commissioner on the ground that the boundaries as mentioned in the plaint schedule are disputed and the existence of the structures on the suit land is required to be brought on record. The trial Court further observed that the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, has already removed the barbed fencing and constructed a compound wall with hallow bricks on the western side under the guise of injunction orders. The trial Court further observed that in a suit for declaration of title, the boundaries must be clear and if they are not clear, problems arise at the time of execution of decree and, therefore, it is necessary to appoint an advocate-commissioner. 4. It is to be noted that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title based on two sale deeds. The respondents/ defendants are disputing the correctness of the boundaries mentioned in the sale deeds and contend that they are imaginary and by such mis-description of boundaries, the plaintiff is trying to grab the property of the defendants. The burden squarely lies on the plaintiff, who filed the suit for declaration of title, to establish his claim based on the sale deeds. 5. The question as to whether or not the property mentioned in the pliant schedule is in existence and whether or not the same tallies with the description as noted in the schedule of the sale deeds on which the plaintiff bases his claim and whether or not the plaint schedule is correct and the plaintiff has established his claim of title over the said property, are all matters to be decided by the trial Court based on the evidence adduced by the parties during the trial and the burden entirely lies on the plaintiff to establish his claim of title. The defendants can refute the claim of the plaintiff and seek to establish their contention by adducing necessary evidence, but in that process, they cannot be permitted to gather evidence by way of Commissioner’s report. Based on the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the parties, the dispute between them needs to be resolved, but not outsourcing job to the advocate-commissioner. The question of localization of the plaint schedule property does not arise. The existence of the suit property as described in the plaint schedule has to be established by the plaintiff by way of evidence and the same cannot be relegated to the advocate- commissioner. The appointment of advocate-commissioner for the purpose of localization of the suit property is, therefore, totally unwarranted. However, there cannot be any tenable objection for appointment of advocate- commissioner for the purpose of noting the physical features, in view of the apprehension of the respondents/defendants that the petitioner/plaintiff may alter the physical features by demolishing the dilapidated structures situate on the suit site. 6. In the circumstances, the impugned order, appointing the advocate-commissioner, is modified by confining the same for the purpose of noting the physical features of the suit property, but not for localization of the plaint schedule property with reference to the title deeds or with the help of the Town Surveyor. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st November, 2011 Lrkm.