When vacant possession after construction removal is sought, measuring the construction by commissioner is unnecessary.

The petitioner instituted O.S.No.129 of 2022 before the Subordinate Judge, Lalgudi, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of vacant land after removal of the construction allegedly put up by the defendants on the suit property.

The petitioner claimed title over six cents out of nine cents in Survey No.303/9, whereas the respondents claimed rights over the entire nine cents.

The petitioner alleged that the respondents had encroached upon the property and put up a construction measuring 50 feet × 50 feet; the respondents, in their written statement, claimed that the construction stood on five cents.

Pending the suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, with the assistance of a qualified Surveyor, to measure the property and submit a report.

The Trial Court dismissed the application on 07.02.2026, leading to the present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Whether an Advocate Commissioner ought to be appointed to measure the suit property and determine the exact extent of the construction in light of the discrepancy between the parties’ pleadings.

Whether the alleged discrepancy regarding the extent of the construction materially affected the petitioner’s claim for recovery of vacant possession after removal of the encroaching construction.

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the Trial Court’s interlocutory order.

The governing principle applied was that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for measurement is unnecessary where the proposed local investigation would not assist in adjudicating the substantive relief claimed.

In a suit for recovery of possession based on title, if the plaintiff establishes title to the property described in the plaint, the plaintiff may obtain recovery of the vacant site after removal of all superstructures standing within that property; the precise area of the construction is therefore immaterial where the relief sought is removal of the construction from the suit property.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s substantive relief was recovery of vacant possession after removal of the construction allegedly raised by the defendants on the suit property, rather than a relief confined to removal of a construction of a particular measurement.

Accordingly, the decisive question in the suit would be whether the petitioner could establish title over the property as described in the plaint. If title were established, every building or superstructure found within that property would be liable to removal, irrespective of whether its extent was five cents or 50 feet × 50 feet.

The discrepancy in the pleadings regarding the construction’s area therefore had no bearing on the petitioner’s entitlement and did not justify appointment of a Commissioner for measurement.

The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, the Trial Court’s order dismissing I.A.No.1 of 2022 was confirmed, and no costs were awarded. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.