A Commissioner’s report is unnecessary when title is the decisive issue in a declaration suit.

The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 154 of 2019 seeking a declaration of absolute ownership over the suit property, a permanent injunction, and consequential reliefs.

When the suit had reached final hearing, she sought to reopen it and appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the property and submit a report.

The Sub Court, Mettupalayam, dismissed both applications, finding that they had been filed belatedly and that a Commissioner’s report was unnecessary in a title suit.

The plaintiff challenged those orders under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Sub Court’s dismissal of the applications to reopen the suit and appoint an Advocate Commissioner warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution

2. Whether an Advocate Commissioner’s inspection and report were necessary to determine the plaintiff’s claim for declaration of title and consequential reliefs

The petitions were brought under Article 227 of the Constitution, which provides for the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts.

The Court stated that interference was not warranted absent perversity in the order under challenge.

It also applied the principles that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving title in a suit for declaration and that a Commissioner’s report is unnecessary where it would not assist the court in effectively deciding the suit.

The applications were filed after the suit had been at the final-hearing stage since 22 November 2023 and had been adjourned repeatedly, which supported the Sub Court’s finding of lack of due diligence.

The central issue was the plaintiff’s title, which she had to establish; an inspection report would not prove that title or materially assist the court’s determination.

The High Court therefore found no perversity warranting supervisory interference.

No costs were ordered, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.