A suit for mere fixation of boundaries is of a civil nature and not barred by any statutory provision. The fixation of boundaries by the civil court is intended to be binding on the parties, and the suit is subject to the law of the land, including the Code of Civil Procedure.

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. A suit, merely for fixation of boundaries, was decreed by the trial court and the decision was confirmed in appeal. That is how the additional defendants came up in second appeal.

2. There are altogether 25 items in plaint A schedule and 19 items in B schedule. These and other items belonged in Kanam to Nooral Rawther, deceased father of plaintiff and first defendant. First defendant was the sole defendant when the suit was instituted. Rawther gifted A schedule and other items to plaintiff under Ext. A1 and B schedule and other items to the first defendant under Ext. A2 on the same day. A and B schedule items are the properties left after transfers in discharge of the debts mentioned in Exts.A1 and A2. Since there are ever so many pending litigations between the parties in respect of individual items included in Ext. A1 and A2, this suit for fixation of boundaries was filed solely to avoid future disputes and not because there is any existing boundary dispute. Additional defendants 2 to 7 are the children of the first defendant. They were impleaded on the contention of the first respondent that he gifted the properties to them. Maintainability of the suit was also questioned.

3. Appellants contended that (i) item 5 in Ext. A1 is not scheduled in the plaint ; (ii) items 1 to 5 in Ext. A1 were transferred to strangers, who are. in possession ; (iii) item 15 in plaint A schedule is the joint property of plaintiff and first defendant ; (iv) items 17 to 19 in A schedule belong to Beepathumma, sister of plaintiff and first defendant; (v) in A schedule item 22, plaintiff has only half right ; (vi) B schedule items 1 to 8 were transferred to strangers, who are in possession ; (vii) B schedule item 17 is also with strangers ; (viii) and items 27 to 30 in Ext. A2 are not included in the plaint schedule. For these and other reasons, they also challenged maintainability of the suit. These contentions were not in serious dispute also.

4. There is no oral evidence. Parties themselves were not examined. The suit was decided solely on the pleadings, Exts. A1 and A2 and the plan submitted by the Commissioner. The pleas of non-joinder of necessary parties and maintainability of the suit were not at all considered by the trial court. Appellate Judge said that fixation of boundary has nothing to do with title or possession of the properties and the wider question of title or possession of strangers and themselves pleaded by the appellants are matters to be agitated in appropriate proceedings, He confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal observing that fixation of boundaries is intended to serve only one purpose namely, demarcating the boundaries with reference to the measurements in Exts. A1 and A2 fixed by the Commissioner and the correctness of the boundaries and measurements and other physical features shown in Exts. A1 and A2 are not decided in the suit. So also, the Appellate Judge reserved the rights of the appellants to file separate suits to establish their rights in spite of fixation of boundaries. If the fixation of boundaries is not intended to be binding on anybody interested in the properties, I fail to understand its purpose. A decree is the formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of parties in dispute and judgment is the statement of grounds of a decree or order.

5. A suit for mere fixation of boundaries is also a suit of 'civil nature' contemplated in S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Cognizance of such a suit is not expressly or by implication barred by any statutory provision including the Survey and Boundaries Act, which provides one remedy in that respect. The decisions of the authorities under the Survey and Boundaries Act are also subject to the decision of the civil court. The only question that may be relevant to the issue in a suit of that nature in the courts in India is whether the suit is one of a civil nature (see P. Narayanan Nair v. E Achuthan Nair and