The court upheld a remand order for re-evaluation of evidence to ascertain property boundaries, emphasizing the need for accurate assessments in boundary disputes.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANU THURSDAY, THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1947 FAO (RO) NO. 16 OF 2024 AS NO.16 OF 2020 OF SUB COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY IN OS NO.114 OF 2010 OF MUNSIFF COURT, KARUNAGAPPALLY APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT:

REMAKUMARI, AGED 64 YEARS D/O. SUBHADRA AMMA, PARANKAMMOOTTIL, PATTOLI MARKET P.O., PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPALLY TALUK ,PIN-690516.

BY ADVS.

SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW SMT.NEENA ELISABATH ANTONY RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:

1 CHANDRAN AGED 70 YEARS S/O. RAGHAVAN, SUNI NIVAS, KURATHIYADU P.O., CHERUKUNNAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-690101.

* ADDL.R2SARASWATHY AGED 59 YEARS W/O. CHANDRAN, SUNI NIVAS, KURATHIKADU P.O., CHERUKUNNAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-

690 101.

ADD.R3 SUNITHI , AGED 23 YEARS, D/O. CHANDRAN, SUNI NIVAS, KURATHIKADU P.O., CHERUKUNNAM MURI, THEKKEKARA VILLAGE, MAVELIKKARA TALUK ,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-

690 101.

*ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE IMPLEADED IN THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER DATED 3/12/2025 IN IA

2/2025.

BY ADVS.

SRI.R.REJI SHRI.M.V.THAMBAN SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SRI.ARUN BOSE SMT.JEENA A.V.

SHRI.THOMAS THOMAS SHRI.ARJUN R.

THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER - REMAND ORDER HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.12.2025, THE COURT ON 18.12.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

S.MANU, J.

--------------------------------------------------

FAO (RO)No.16 of 2024 -------------------------------------------------

Dated this the 18^th day of December, 2025

JUDGMENT

Appellant is the respondent in A.S.No.16/2020 of the Sub Court, Karunagappally. By the impugned judgment, the learned Sub Judge set aside the judgment and decree in O.S.No.114/2010 of the Munsiff’s Court, Karunagappally, filed by the respondent.

2. The suit was filed by the respondent seeking a decree to fix the northern boundary of the plaint schedule property and also for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against the appellant herein from committing trespass and putting up a new boundary. The appellant filed written statement with a counterclaim. She sought for fixing the common boundary between the plaint schedule property and the counterclaim schedule property.

3. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court and was deputed along with a Surveyor to measure out the plaint schedule property and the counterclaim schedule property on the basis of re-survey plan and title documents and to fix the boundary. Accordingly, the Commissioner, assisted by the Surveyor, measured the properties and submitted a report, mahazar and survey plan. An application was filed by the appellant to set aside the report and plan, but the same was dismissed. Respondent was examined as PW1 and the Village Officer was examined as PW2. The Surveyor and the Advocate Commissioner were examined as PWs.3 and 4 respectively. The appellant was examined as DW1. The learned Munsiff, on conclusion of trial, decreed the suit and counterclaim by fixing the common boundary through the RTH line and WU line shown in Ext.C1(a) plan appended along with the decree.

4. The respondent filed A.S.No.16/2020 before the Sub Court, Karunagapally, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. The respondent filed I.A.No.5/2024 under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce the co- relation plan as additional evidence. The learned Sub Judge, by the impugned judgment, found that in fixing the boundary line, some guesswork was resorted to by the Advocate Commissioner and the Surveyor. The boundary line was fixed without proper reference to the co-relation plan. The learned Sub Judge did