JUDGMENT :

An order of remand was passed in a suit for fixation of boundary by the first appellate court after setting aside the decree and judgment of the trial court on the simple reason that the property of the defendants was not scheduled in the plaint. The first appellate court has committed a grave error in the exercise of jurisdiction. In a suit for fixation of boundary, it is not at all necessary to schedule the property of the defendants firstly, on the ground that the extent, survey number and other details showing the property of the defendants may not be available to the plaintiff. Secondly, for fixing the boundary of the plaintiff's property, it is not at all necessary to schedule the property of the defendants. It is really not a ground of attack or a valid reason to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The first appellate court has committed a grave mistake by applying a proposition that in a suit for fixation of boundary, the description of properties of both the parties (plaintiff and defendants) should be included in the plaint as separate schedules by relying on a decision rendered by this Court in Nandakumara Varma and another v. Usha Varma and A