Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 20883
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T. R. Ravi, J
HAREENDRAN PILLAI – Appellant
Versus
MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI – Respondent
RSA 231 2023
ARUN THOMAS, SANTHOSH MATHEW, TOM K.THOMAS
The principle established is that previous judicial findings cannot be reopened if not contested, particularly in boundary disputes.
Headnote:
Boundary - Appeal - Act Section List - The Court affirmed the fixation of the boundary as per the partition deed, emphasizing adherence to prior rulings on the commissioner's report and dismissing the appeal as it raised no substantial questions of law.
Fact of the Case:
The defendant challenged a decree for boundary fixation, arguing that a partition deed, which included a building on their property, was disregarded in the commissioner's report.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the decree, stating that prior findings on the commissioner's report were binding and could not be reopened in the current appeal.
Issues: Whether the boundary fixation disregarded the partition deed and the implications of the prior appellate court's findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The previous findings related to the commissioner's report, which was not contested, were binding and essential for determining the boundary limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed with no substantial questions of law arising.
JUDGMENT
The appeal has been preferred by the defendant in a suit for fixation of boundary. The Court below has granted a decree based on the report of the Commissioner. The First Appellate Court has confirmed the decree. The defendant has preferred this second appeal. The contention of the defendant is that the fixation of the boundary is based on a partition deed which is the basic document of the parties and as per the partition deed, there is a building situated in the property of the defendant, which has not been taken into account in the report of the Commissioner. It is submitted that if the decree is given effect, the boundary will pass through a portion of the building. Earlier, the report of the Commissioner had been set aside and a fresh report had been called for and the matter had been remanded back for consideration. Against the remand order, the plaintiff has preferred FAO(RO)No.48/2018 which was disposed of by judgment dated 15.06.2022. This Court categorically found that the first Commission report ought not to have been set aside. It is also found that “Necessarily, the plan which is submitted as Ext.C1(a) has to be accepted, when the road frontage was also equally in reference to the extent of properties held by the respective parties.” It is thereafter that the present decree is passed based on Ext.C1(a). Admittedly, the judgment in the FAO has not been challenged. As such, the findings rendered therein cannot be reopened in the second appeal. Since this Court has already held that Ext.C1(a) is to be followed, the judgment rendered cannot be said to be faulty. No substantial questions of law arise. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
