Not Every Advocate Commissioner Appointment Is Evidence Gathering: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Discretion in Title Dispute

“A local investigation to record physical features does not amount to collecting evidence — it only helps the Court better appreciate the evidence already brought by parties.” - In a judgment Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in a title and possession suit. The Court upheld the discretion exercised by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, stating that when rival claims as to nature and use of land exist, a local investigation under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC is entirely justified.

Justice Dr. V.R.K. Krupa Sagar held that the trial court acted within its legal limits, and its order appointing a commissioner to record physical features could not be treated as an attempt to collect evidence.

“The trial court was very circumspect and was alive to the fact that the process of the Court should never be used for collection of evidence… What it allowed was a recording of physical features, nothing more.”

“Noting Whether the Land Has Cattle Sheds or Crops Isn’t Proof — It’s Context”

The underlying suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction over a parcel of land. The plaintiff claimed title through an unregistered 1948 Will and alleged that he had been in possession — storing manure, tying cattle, and using the property alongside others. The defendant, however, claimed he was cultivating crops on it and accused the plaintiff of trying to grab the land.

During pre-trial proceedings, the plaintiff sought appointment of a commissioner to record physical features, including whether the land was agricultural or otherwise.

Though the defendant argued this was an attempt to gather evidence before issues were framed, the trial court allowed the application — and the High Court has now upheld that order.

“While the petition initially sought the assistance of a Mandal Surveyor and a report on whether the land is agricultural or non-agricultural, the trial court did not grant those parts… It merely allowed for physical features to be recorded.”

“CPC Allows This – Commissioner Helps the Court Understand, Not Replace Evidence”

The revision petitioner had relied on earlier rulings to argue that appointment of a commissioner for local inspection was impermissible in a title dispute. But the High Court distinguished those cases.

It cited the precedent in N. Savitramma v. B. Changa Reddy, which had affirmed: “Whenever physical features on the land are relevant and risk being altered by time or adversarial action, appointing a commissioner helps preserve the scene. It is not evidence collection — it is assistance in understanding the evidence.”

Further citing K. Dayanand v. P. Sampath Kumar, the Court emphasized that: “The nature of user of the property — such as cattle sheds vs. crops — can justify local investigation. It doesn’t mean the Court is gathering evidence for the party.”

“There’s No Irregularity Here — The Trial Judge Acted Cautiously and Lawfully”

Rejecting the revision plea entirely, the Court observed: “There was no erroneous exercise of discretion by the Court below. There is no merit in this revision.”

The trial court’s order dated 26 July 2019, appointing Sri K. Bhuvana Ekadasi Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa, as commissioner to record the land’s physical status, was confirmed. The High Court further noted that such appointments do not replace oral or documentary evidence but assist in better appreciating what is later brought before the court.

“The point is answered against the revision petitioner. This Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The trial court’s order stands confirmed.”

Date of Decision: April 7, 2025