Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49386
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Easwaran S., J
JEMUNA – Appellant
Versus
BABY SAROJAM – Respondent
RSA NO. 109 OF 2025|AS NO.270 OF 2016|OS NO.64 OF 1986|RSA NO. 110 OF 2025|AS NO.273 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.V.SURESH, SRI.G.SUDHEER, SRI.R.HARIKRISHNAN
For the Respondents: SRI.K.S.BHARATHAN, SRI.ALPHIN ANTONY, SRI.AADITHYAN S.MANNALI, JISHNU P.P., SMT.RADHIKAKRISHNA
Courts must adhere to specific remand orders regarding property identification and title adjudication; deviations warrant appellate intervention to ensure compliance with legal standards.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Regular Second Appeal - Remand of suit for fresh consideration - Court found that the Trial Court and First Appellate Court disregarded the remand order dated 12.03.2010 in S.A. No. 514 of 1995 - The Courts concluded erroneously based on possessory titles instead of strict compliance with the identified title documents - The necessity to comply with directions regarding identification of properties is emphasized. (Paras 6-8)
(B) Appeals - The remand to the trial court was necessitated due to non-compliance with earlier directional orders and admission of additional evidence - The approach of the First Appellate Court was criticized for being pedantic. (Paras 8-10)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from O.S. No. 64 of 1986 seeking title declaration and possession which was initially decreed but faced continuous appeals. A previous remand order necessitated specific compliance which was not followed by the courts below.
Findings of Court:
The original suit was restored to the Principal Munsiff Court for compliance with remand direction, and further proceedings were to prioritize the identification of property as per legal guidelines laid out in earlier judgments.
Issues: The core issue was the disregard of specific remand directions by lower courts regarding property identification and title adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court stated that once a remand order contains specific directions, any deviation by subordinate courts necessitates intervention and further proceedings to ensure legal compliance.
Result: Appeals allowed; case remanded to create adherence to the original orders.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of case background (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's examination of procedural adherence (Para 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. decision on remanding the case with instructions (Para 9) |
| 4. final ruling and instructions for trial court (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT
These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 28.2.2014 in O.S. No.64 of 1986 on the files of the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara as confirmed by the Additional District and Sessions Court in A.S. No.270 of 2016 and 273 of 2016 on the files of the District Court, Neyyattinkara.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
The suit, O.S. No.64 of 1986, filed for declaration of title and possession, injunction, and putting up of boundary instituted by the plaintiff was originally decreed by judgment dated 31.1.1989 by the Principal Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the 1st defendant preferred AS No.49 of 1994 which was dismissed on 28.2.1995. Thereafter, the 1st defendant approached this Court in S.A. No.514 of 1995 , and this Court, by judgment dated 12.03.2010, allowed the appeal, and the judgments of the courts below were set aside. The suit was remanded back for fresh consideration with specific reference to identify the plaint B schedule property with reference to Ext.A1. After remand, the trial court decreed the suit and, aggrieved by the judgment and decree, two separate appeals were preferred by the defendant No.3 (AS No.273 of 2016) and defendant Nos.5 to 8 (AS No.270 of 2016). Both the appeals were dismissed, and thus the present second appeals are before this Court.
3. In the nature of the order that this Court proposes to pass in these appeals, a detailed elucidation of the facts of the case may not be required. Suffice to say, the point of dispute raised in the present appeals is as to whether the courts below have disregarded the directions contained in the judgment dated 12.3.2010 in SA No.514 of 1995. Therefore, the consideration in the present appeals is solely confined to the above aspect and precisely the reason why this Court framed the following question of law when the appeals were admitted on 30.5.2025.
“ Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in disregarding the terms of the remand order dated 12.3.2010 in SA No.514 of 1995.”
4. Heard Sri. G. Sudheer, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. K.S. Bharathan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 4 in these appeals.
5. After remand, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.461 of 2011 to identify plaint A schedule property on the basis of Ext.A1 and also with reference to the documents of title relied on by the plaintiff and referred to in the plaint. A further prayer for identifying plaint B schedule property on the basis of the said documents was also there. On the basis of this application, the Advocate Commissioner submitted Ext.C5 report and Ext.C5(a) plan. The advocate commissioner reported that since no plan was appended to Ext.A1, the property as per Ext.A1 could not be identified. Thus, the 3rd defendant filed I.A. No.3816 of 2012 for setting aside the report and plan of the advocate commissioner, interalia, contending that the commissioner has not identified the property with reference to Ext.A1. The advocate commissioner who was examined as PW4 admitted that he could not identify the plaint A schedule property on the basis of Ext.A1. However, the advocate commissioner further deposed that he identified the property on the basis of the earlier plan, Ext.C2. The trial court, however, found that the defendants had no case that the advocate commissioner had not identified the property on the basis of sufficient data. Therefore, the trial court came to the conclusion that even if the advocate commissioner had not identified the property with reference to Ext.A1, since the commissioner had identified the property based on other available data, the suit ought to be decreed. It is this finding,
