Properties must be individually scheduled in a plaint when acquired through separate title documents to facilitate legal clarity and resolution.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 14th day of November 2019 The 1st defendant came up with this appeal against the decree and judgment of both the courts below in a suit for declaration of title, fixation of boundary, recovery of possession and injunction. The suit was decreed in part, confirmed in appeal. A counter claim was raised by the defendant which was dismissed and confirmed in appeal against which no appeal was preferred. The plaint schedule comes to 48 cents acquired by 3 documents. 20 cents being the extreme western portion obtained under sale deed no. 3198/1985. The next eastern 14 cents was obtained by way of a settlement deed no. 2867/1979. These two properties were obtained by the plaintiff. The next eastern portion having an extent of 14 cents jointly obtained by the plaintiff along with her husband, who is the 2nd defendant in the suit under sale deed no. 2229/1973 from the mother of the defendant. The dispute is with respect to the eastern 14 cents. The property obtained under document no. 2229/1973, Ext.A1 forms part of a large extent of 51 cents owned by the mother of the defendant. The other two properties were obtained from strangers. There is no separate schedule for the said properties obtained under 1973 document, Ext.A3 in the plaint. Likewise the property obtained under settlement deed of 1979 and purchased of the year 1985 were not separately scheduled in the plaint. The dispute is only with respect to the eastern boundary of 14 cents covered by 1973 sale deed. That was not separately scheduled in the plaint. Instead, the plaintiff brought all these 3 properties into a single schedule which is not permissible under law, though, the same lying as a single compact plot. The different acquisitions obtained under different documents should be separately scheduled in the plaint if the plaintiff wants to have some relief over any of the said items. Only the 14 cents being the eastern portion of the plaint schedule property forms part of a large extent of 51 cents owned by the mother of the defendant. That property was not separately scheduled and as such, no decree of fixation of boundary can be granted to the property covered by 1973 sale. The decree granted by the trial court and the 1st Appellate Court, fixing the boundary hence cannot be accepted, unless the property wherein the boundary dispute exists is separately scheduled in relation to the title document. The mandate under order 7 Rule 3 CPC is not complied with. The acquisition of different immovable properties under different title documents from different persons should be scheduled separately in the plaint so as to have its identification apart from other properties. Only the property involved in the dispute alone need to be scheduled in the plaint. All these constitute a substantial question of law for the purpose of this aspect. Hence decree and judgment of both the Courts below are set aside so as to enable the plaintiff to incorporate separate schedules based on the 3 documents of acquisition and to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. A survey commission may also be deputed to locate the eastern most 14 cents covered by 1973 document out of the large extent of 51 cents owned by the mother of the defendant.

Hence decree and judgment of both the courts below are set aside. Matter is remanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on 10/12/2019. This appeal is allowed in part accordingly. No cost.