Summary
The Supreme Court remitted long-pending final-decree proceedings for evidence on disputed survey boundaries and the second defendant’s claimed adjoining land. Failure to appeal the preliminary decree did not foreclose his objection to Survey No.988, which was absent from the suit-property description. Neither automatic inclusion nor exclusion resolved the factual confusion. The Court separately rejected a belated affidavit attacking the plaintiff-assignee’s standing and prohibited reopening that issue on remand.
Issues
- Whether non-appeal from the preliminary decree barred an objection concerning land omitted from the suit-property description.
- What inquiry and limits should govern the remanded final-decree proceedings.
Provisions considered
- Section 97, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Although an unappealed preliminary decree cannot ordinarily be disputed in an appeal from the final decree, that bar did not defeat the consistent objection concerning Survey No.988, not specified in the suit-property description. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Held
- The second defendant consistently asserted ownership of adjoining Survey No.988 and objected to the commissioner’s identification. Because that number was absent from the suit description, non-appeal from the preliminary decree could not be held against him on this issue. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17)
- The trial court should have received evidence on the disputed land and boundaries instead of rejecting objections by invoking finality, alleged absence of a plea or the age of proceedings. The High Court also failed to examine entitlement and boundary confusion. (¶¶ 14, 15, 17, 18)
- The belated affidavit denying assignment and alleging forged participation in the final-decree application was an afterthought. Its author could not advance a claim based on it on remand, and Selvi’s standing to pursue the proceedings could not be challenged. (¶ 19)
- On remand the parties may adduce oral and documentary evidence concerning the commissioner’s report. The court must determine the correct survey numbers, correspondence with the mortgaged property and boundaries, and the second defendant’s entitlement by reference to documents and prior proceedings. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal allowed without costs. High Court and lower-court judgments set aside; final-decree application remitted for fresh, expedited determination on the specified issues. Selvi’s standing protected from further challenge.