Defendant's Property Need Not Be Specifically Scheduled In Suit For Boundary Fixation If Common Boundary Is Indicated: Kerala High Court

"Plaintiff cannot be expected to know or be aware of the details of the property of the defendant including its extent and survey number. It would be imprudent to hold that the plaintiff cannot file a suit for determination of the boundary of his property if he is unaware of the details of the property of the defendant," Kerala High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified that in a suit for fixation of boundary, it is not mandatory to incorporate the defendant’s property as a separate schedule in the plaint.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that while describing the plaintiff's property, it is sufficient to mention that the adjoining property of the disputed boundary belongs to the defendant to satisfy the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The matter reached the Division Bench following a reference to resolve a conflict between two earlier decisions of the High Court regarding whether both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s properties must be scheduled in a boundary dispute. The underlying dispute involved a suit filed by K.N. Sukumaran Nair for fixation of boundary and a prohibitory injunction against trespass against K.E. Parameswara Pillai, centered on a narrow strip of land identified during a Commissioner's survey.

The primary question before the Court was whether it is mandatory to incorporate the defendant’s property in the schedule to the plaint in a suit for fixation of boundary. Additionally, the Court examined whether the First Appellate Court was justified in remanding the suit to the Trial Court when the necessary materials for determination were already available on record.

Court Resolves Conflict Between Earlier Precedents

The Division Bench noted a conflict between Nandakumara Varma v. Usha Varma (2015), which held that both properties must be scheduled, and Appukuttan Nair v. Sadasivan Nair (2022), which held the opposite. The Court observed that the dispute in such suits is the location of the boundaries separating the properties. Therefore, provided the description is sufficient to identify the property, the technical requirement of scheduling the neighbor's property is not absolute.

Interpretation of Order VII Rule 3 CPC

The Court analyzed Order VII Rule 3 of the CPC, which requires a description of the immovable property sufficient to identify it. The Bench noted that when a plaintiff seeks to fix a disputed boundary, mentioning the adjoining owner in the description of their own property is legally sufficient. The judges emphasized that the law should not place an impossible burden on the plaintiff.

"Such description is sufficient to identify the disputed property. To resolve the dispute, measurement of the defendant's property would be necessary along with that of the plaintiff. However, such measurements would be based on the title deeds of the respective parties or possession as the case may be."

Practical Challenges for Plaintiffs

The Bench highlighted the practical difficulties if a contrary view were taken, noting that a plaintiff may not always possess the specific survey numbers or exact extents of a neighbor’s land. The Court held that a plaintiff's right to seek judicial intervention for boundary fixation cannot be contingent upon having full details of the defendant's title or property records.

"It would be imprudent to hold that... the plaintiff cannot file a suit for determination of the boundary of his property if he is unaware of the details of the property of the defendant. Therefore, it cannot be held that, the defendant's property, with which the boundary is sought to be fixed, needs to be scheduled to the plaint."

Appellate Courts Should Avoid Unnecessary Remands

Regarding the merits of the specific appeal, the Court found that the First Appellate Court had erroneously remanded the case for fresh identification. The Bench observed that all necessary documents, including sale deeds (Exts. A5, B1, and B2) and the Commissioner’s report, were already available before the appellate court.

"When the materials necessary for proper determination of the issues involved in the suit are available before the first appellate court, has there not being an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction in remanding the suit to the trial court?"

The High Court concluded that a further identification by measurement was unnecessary as the existing Commissioner's report (Ext. C2 and C2a) already identified the disputed plot 'CHVDC'. The Bench held that the appellate court should have appreciated the evidence on record and decided the lis itself rather than sending it back to the Trial Court.

The High Court set aside the order of remand and directed the First Appellate Court to re-hear and decide the appeal on its merits. The ruling settles the procedural debate, ensuring that boundary fixation suits are not dismissed or delayed purely on the technicality of failing to schedule the defendant's property.

Date of Decision: 25 May 2026