The trial court erred in entertaining a boundary fixation in a final decree application without proper jurisdiction under Family Court provisions.

EASWARAN S., J --------------------------------------------

R.S.A No.195 of 2025 --------------------------------------------

Dated this the 5th day of February, 2026 JUDGMENT The only question that is involved in the appeal is as to whether a decree for fixation of boundary can be executed finally in a final decree application.

2. The facts in this case are not under dispute.

Appellant and first respondent were husband and wife and were divorced through an order of the District Court, Pathanamthitta. The suit in O.S.No.274 of 1991 was instituted by the 1^st respondent as plaintiff for partition, declaration of title and fixation of boundary. By judgment and decree dated 30.09.1999 the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta passed a preliminary decree by which item No.2 (ABC schedule) of the plaint was directed to be partitioned into two equal halves and as regards item Nos.1 and 3, the plaintiff was granted a decree for fixation of boundary. The said preliminary decree was challenged by the appellant herein in A.S.No.108 of 1999 before the District Court, Pathanamthitta and by judgment dated 27.12.2005 the appeal was dismissed. As against the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant filed R.S.A.No.903 of 2006 before this Court which was dismissed by judgment dated 03.12.2018. During the pendency of the first appeal, it appears that the plaintiff had filed an application for passing of final decree as F.D.I.A. No.1002 of 2006 which was kept pending presumably because of the challenge to the preliminary decree. After the dismissal of the second appeal, the Sub Court proceeded with the final decree application and by judgment dated 03.03.2022, allowed the final decree as regards the fixation of boundary but dismissed the application for default qua the claim for partition of item No.2 (ABC schedule) for the reason that the properties were not identified. As against the judgment and decree fixing the boundary between item 1 and 3 in terms of the preliminary decree the appellant filed A.S.No.47 of 2022 and by judgment dated 29.10.2024, the district court, Pathanamthitta dismissed the appeal affirming the final decree and hence the present appeal.

3. Before the first appellate court, for the first time, the appellant raised a question of jurisdiction of the civil court to execute the decree in view of the fact that the Family Court was established in Pathanamthitta from 2003 onwards and therefore, the proceedings for passing of the final decree ought to have been transferred to the Family Court and is not maintainable before the Sub Court, Pathanamthitta. This question was answered in negative against the appellant.

4. In the present appeal, the appellant questions the findings referred by the courts below on the ground that the Family Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction as regards the proceedings between the parties and also in the light of the fact that the Sub Court could not have granted a final decree for fixation of boundary in terms of Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 .

5. By order dated 28.03.2025 this Court admitted the appeal on the following substantial questions of law:

“A. Whether the trial court and the first appellate court were justified in allowing the fixation of eastern boundary of the plaint item no. 1 property separating the same from the plaint item no.3 property in a Final Decree Application under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , when the said relief was not for partition, even by overlooking the judgment and decree in the Original Suit?

B. Whether the trial court and the first appellate court were justified in entertaining and allo