The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s second remand order for de-novo disposal, finding it erroneous given the possibility of deciding the appeal based on the interpretation of existing documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed). The Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits expeditiously within six months.
Facts Of The Case:
This appeal challenges a judgment from the High Court of Kerala, which set aside a trial court’s dismissal of a suit and remanded the matter for de-novo disposal. The dispute concerns 9 cents of land in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam. The appellant’s father executed a sale deed in 1955 for “Verumpattom Rights” over land in Survey No. 1236. Later, in 1964, he executed a conveyance deed for “Jenmam Rights” over land, mentioning Survey No. 1250, though the area and boundaries were the same as in the sale deed. In 1993, the appellant acquired interest in the subject land through partition and settlement deeds. In 1994, the respondents’ father executed a settlement deed in favor of Respondent No. 1, referencing both the 1955 sale deed and 1964 conveyance deed, and clarifying the property was included in Survey No. 1236. The respondents filed a suit in 2011 seeking declaration of title, boundary fixation, and injunction, which the Trial Court dismissed. The High Court previously remanded the case in 2021, but this was set aside by the Supreme Court in 2023 for lack of reasoning, directing the High Court to decide afresh. The High Court, in its impugned judgment of January 9, 2024, again remanded the suit for de-novo disposal, citing a lack of proper identification by the Court Commissioner.
Procedural History:
The case originated from a suit, O.S. No. 246 of 2011, filed by the respondents before the Trial Court, which was dismissed on October 31, 2017. Aggrieved by this, the respondents filed an appeal, R.F.A. No. 42 of 2018, before the High Court. The High Court, via an order dated July 5, 2021, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of evidence. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court with a special leave petition, SLP (C) No. 13602 of 2021, where the Supreme Court, on April 10, 2023, granted leave, set aside the High Court’s July 5, 2021 order due to erroneous reasoning, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for a fresh decision. Subsequently, on January 9, 2024, the High Court again allowed the respondents’ appeal and remanded the suit for de-novo disposal, allowing parties to adduce further evidence. This led to the present special leave petition by the appellant, where the Supreme Court issued notice on April 8, 2024, and directed status quo be maintained.
READ ALSO :Supreme Court’s Mandate: New Public Notice for Nagaland Village Recognition
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court’s Single Judge had noted the identical boundary descriptions in Exhibits A1, A8, A9, and B6, but identified a discrepancy in the survey number, believing boundary-based identification would resolve the issue. The High Court had primarily remanded the case due to a perceived lack of proper identification by the Court Commissioner. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted that the sale deed clearly stated the property’s area as 9 cents and Survey No. 1236. While the subsequent conveyance deed also mentioned 9 cents and identical boundaries, it listed Survey No. 1250. This discrepancy, the Court noted, was clarified by a settlement deed which stated the property was included in Survey No. 1236 despite the conveyance deed’s mention of Survey No. 1250. Thus, the Supreme Court concluded the appeal could have been decided by interpreting these three documents, rendering another remand for a Court Commissioner unnecessary and a cause for undue delay in a 14-year-old case
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s impugned judgment and final order dated January 9, 2024. The Court found that the High Court had erred in remitting the matter for a second occasion. Instead of a de-novo disposal, the Supreme Court requested the learned Single Judge of the High Court to decide the appeal on its own merits, in accordance with the law, and in light of the Supreme Court’s observations. This decision is to be made as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within a period of six months from the date of the Supreme Court’s judgment. All pending applications were also disposed of, with no costs awarded
Case Details:
Case Title: PETER AUGUSTINE VERSUS K.V. XAVIER AND OTHERS Citation: 2025 INSC 771 Civil Appeal No.:(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 7988 of 2024) Date Of Judgement: May 23, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: B.R. GAVAI and AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Download The Judgement Here