No Need To Remit Matter For Another Court Commissioner’s Appointment When Case Could Be Decided On Interpretation Of Available Documents: Supreme Court
The Appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Kerala High Court remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for de-novo disposal.
Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
In a property dispute matter pending for over 14 years, the Supreme Court has held that when the matter could have been decided on the interpretation of the sale, conveyance and settlement deeds, again remitting the matter only for the appointment of another Court Commissioner would have further delayed the proceedings.
The Appeal before the Apex Court challenged the judgment of the Kerala High Court setting aside the judgment of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam , allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for de-novo disposal.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Of India B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “In that view of the matter, we find that the appeal could have been very well decided on the basis of the interpretation of the three documents (being the sale deed, the conveyance deed and the settlement deed) since the area of the property as well as the borders and boundaries shown were the same in all the said documents. When the matter could have been decided on the interpretation of the said three documents, again remitting the matter only for the appointment of another Court Commissioner would further delay the proceedings between the parties which have been pending for more than 14 years.”
Factual Background
The case dates back to the year 1955, when the father of the appellant executed a sale deed for a consideration of Rs 500, conveying the “Verumpattom Rights” over a land pertaining to Kallor Mana in favour of the father of the respondents. Subsequently, the appellant’s father executed a conveyance deed for a consideration of Rs 100, transferring the “Jenmam Rights” in favour of the father of the respondents. In the year 1993, several partition and settlement deeds were executed in respect of the subject land in favour of the appellant thereby devolving the interest of the subject land upon the appellant.
In the meantime, the father of the respondents executed a settlement deed, in favour of the first respondent over the land obtained under the Sale Deed and Conveyance Deed. In order to resolve the dispute over the subject land, the respondents filed a suit before the Trial Court seeking a declaration of title, fixation of boundary and injunction vis-à-vis the subject land against the appellant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents filed an appeal, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court.
The appellant approached the Apex Court by way of a special leave petition wherein the Court granted leave and remitted the matter back to the High Court, directing it to decide the matter afresh. Ultimately, by way of the impugned judgment and final order dated January 9, 2024, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and once again remanded the suit back to the Trial Court for de-novo disposal. Further, the High Court afforded an opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence. Being aggrieved thereby, the present special leave petition was filed by the appellant.
Reasoning
The Bench noticed that the Single Judge of the High Court had remitted the matter back to the Trial Court only on the ground that there was no proper identification of the subject land by the Court Commissioner. The High Court observed that unless such an identification was made, it could not be said that the subject land was properly identified. However, the High Court had also observed that the boundary description on all four sides of the property was the same.
On a perusal of the facts and documents on record, the Bench noted that the Conveyance Deed was executed by the father of the appellant in favour of the father of the respondents, and the survey number mentioned therein was 1250. However, in the Sale Deed of 1955, the property was included in survey number 1236. In the settlement deed., the survey number was mentioned as 1236.
The Bench was of the view that the appointment of another Court Commissioner was not needed when the matter could have been decided on the interpretation of the said three documents. The Apex Court also held that if the Single Judge was of the view that a Court Commissioner’s report would have assisted in deciding the appeal, the Judge himself could have appointed the Court Commissioner and called for the report. However, the same was not necessary.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench requested the Single Judge to decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance with law within 6 months.
Cause Title: Peter Augustine v. K.v. Xavier and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 771)
