Summary
The Supreme Court held that the Kerala High Court erred in remanding a title suit to the Trial Court a second time merely for appointment of another Court Commissioner, when the appeal could be decided by interpreting the sale deed, conveyance deed and settlement deed, all of which described the same area and boundaries. The appeal was allowed and the High Court was asked to decide the first appeal on merits within six months.
Issues
- Whether the learned Single Judge of the High Court was justified in again remitting the suit to the Trial Court for de novo disposal on the ground that the Court Commissioner had not properly identified the suit land.
Held
- Where the High Court itself found that the boundary description on all four sides of the property in the sale deed, the conveyance deed and the settlement deed was identical, and the only discrepancy was in the survey number, the appeal could have been decided on the interpretation of those three documents. The recital in the settlement deed executed by the respondents' father itself clarified that the property conveyed under the 1964 conveyance deed (survey no. 1250) was the same as that under the 1955 sale deed included in survey no. 1236. (¶¶ 8, 9, 11, 12, 13)
- Remitting the matter again only for the appointment of another Court Commissioner, when the dispute could be decided on the documents, would further delay proceedings pending for more than 14 years. Even if a Commissioner's report was thought useful, the High Court could have appointed the Commissioner itself and called for the report instead of remanding the suit. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court is requested to decide the first appeal on its own merits in accordance with law and in light of the Court's observations, as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six months. Pending applications disposed of; no costs.