1. Remand for the sake of remand. Remand though the calls of justice do not demand remand. This is actually what has happened in this case. Waste of time and energy, prejudice to the parties and loss of confidence of the public in the judicial process are the result of unjustified remand, the loss of which is fatal. It is very settled that the power to remand a case shall be exercised only sparingly and the appellate court should make earnest efforts to dispose of the case on merits if evidence on record is sufficient to make an adjudication.

2. The plaintiff is the owner of 7 ares 78 sq.links described in the plaint schedule. The first defendant is the owner of the adjoining eastern property. Defendants 2 and 3 are the owners of the northern property adjoining the plaintiff's property. There is no boundary separating the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants attempted to put up boundary and to construct a road along the northern boundary of the plaintiff's property. These are the allegations on the basis of which the plaintiff sought for fixation of the boundary of her property. The first defendant contended that there is a wall separating his property from the property of the plaintiff. The second and third defendants raised a contention that for more than 15 years a road has been in existence between their property and the plaintiff's property and that there is a wall separating the road and the property of defendants 1 and 2.

3. Ext C1 commission report proves that there is a wall separating the properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff has given up her claim for fixation of the boundary between her property and the property of the first defendant. This issue does not survive now.

4. The report of the Commissioner that there is a 5 metre wide road separating the properties of the plaintiff and of defendants 2 and 3 stares at her. The case of defendants 2 and 3 their property has a compound wall on all its boundaries stands confirmed by the admission the plaintiff (PW1) made in the box.

5. The trial court allowed the plaintiff “to put up boundary of her choice on the northern side of her property along AHG line in Ext C1(b) plan” which is the line separating her property and the northern road. The learned District Judge has made the following observation in his judgment: “Though the defendants raised a contention that a portion of the property owned by the plaintiff on its northern side now lying as a way having a width of 5 metre. They have not produced by document in order to show that it is a public way. On the other hand even according to them the user of the said way is limited for a period of 15 years. Neither the first defendant nor the defendants 2 and 3 have any case that they have got any right, title and interest over the property owned by the plaintiff herein. Even for perfection of prescriptive easement right at least a user as of right for a period of 20 years ending within two years is necessary.” The learned District Judge has observed that the defendants have no right over the road. I.A.No.205 of 2010 allowed by the plaintiff for amendment of the plaint incorporating relief of recovery of possession. He set aside the judgment and the decree of the lower court and remanded the case. The first defendant, and defendants 1 and 2 have filed separate appeals.

6. In a suit for fixation of boundary it is not the boundary of the plaintiff alone that is fixed. It is the boundary between the property of the plaintiff and the defendant that is fixed. This necessitates description of the properties of both parties in separate schedules in the plaint and the plaintiff making a prayer for fixation of the boundaries between the properties. This has not been done in this case.

7. To maintain a suit for fixation of boundary it is necessary that properties of the parties to the suit are adjoining properties, which means that the two properties should be in contact wi