Latest JudgementCode of Civil Procedure, 1908

K.N. Sukumaran Nair v. K.E. Parameswara Pillai, 2026

Defendant's Property Need Not Be Scheduled.

Kerala High Court·30 May 2026

Court

Kerala High Court

Date of Decision

30 May 2026

Judges

Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Order VII Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Facts of the Case

The dispute concerned a suit for fixation of boundary and injunction against trespass.
The defendant and his brother originally owned 18 cents each under a partition deed.
The defendant owned the western portion while his brother owned the eastern portion.
The defendant later conveyed one shop room and one cent of land to his brother.
Subsequently, the legal heirs of the brother sold their property to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff later sold portions of the property and claimed that approximately 5 cents remained with him.
The plaintiff sought identification of the remaining land and fixation of its boundary with the defendant's property.
An Advocate Commissioner and Surveyor were appointed to identify the property.
The Trial Court accepted the Commissioner's report and decreed the suit.
The First Appellate Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
The plaintiff challenged the remand order before the High Court.

Whether the property of the defendant must be specifically scheduled in a suit for fixation of boundary under Order VII Rule 3 CPC?
Whether describing only the plaintiff's property and indicating the common boundary with the defendant satisfies Order VII Rule 3 CPC?
Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in remanding the suit when sufficient evidence was already available on record?
Whether further measurement and identification of the property were necessary for deciding the dispute?

The Court held that Order VII Rule 3 CPC does not require the plaintiff to schedule the defendant's property in a boundary fixation suit.
It observed that the plaintiff cannot reasonably be expected to know all particulars of the defendant's property, such as survey number, extent, and title details.
The Court clarified that it is sufficient if the plaint properly describes the plaintiff's property and indicates that the adjoining disputed boundary belongs to the defendant.
The Bench approved the view taken in Appukuttan Nair v. Sadasivan Nair and disagreed with the contrary view in Nandakumara Varma v. Usha Varma.
The Court noted that measurement of both properties may become necessary during adjudication, but such exercise would be based on evidence and title documents produced by the parties.
On the remand issue, the Court found that the Advocate Commissioner's report and other materials already available were sufficient for deciding the dispute.
It held that the First Appellate Court had unnecessarily remanded the matter.

The defendant's property need not be separately scheduled in a suit for fixation of boundary.
Description of the plaintiff's property along with identification of the common boundary is sufficient compliance with Order VII Rule 3 CPC.
The remand order passed by the First Appellate Court was set aside.
The First Appellate Court was directed to hear and decide the appeal on merits.

The judgment adopts a practical interpretation of Order VII Rule 3 CPC.
It removes an unnecessary procedural burden on plaintiffs who may not possess detailed information regarding neighbouring properties.
The ruling ensures that genuine boundary disputes are not defeated on technical pleading requirements.
The decision harmonizes procedural law with practical realities of property litigation.
By setting aside the remand order, the Court emphasized that remand should not be ordered when sufficient evidence already exists on record.
The judgment promotes speedy adjudication and reduces unnecessary delays in civil litigation.
It provides important guidance for courts dealing with boundary disputes, property identification, and pleading requirements.