In an important ruling on property disputes, the Kerala High Court has clarified that a person seeking fixation of a property boundary is not required to include a separate description of the defendant’s property in the plaint. The court settled a legal conflict between two earlier decisions that had taken opposite views on the issue.
The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar on May 25, 2026.
Background of the Case
The matter arose from a long-running boundary dispute between two neighbouring landowners in Kottayam district. The plaintiff had filed a suit seeking fixation of boundary and an injunction against alleged trespass.
During the proceedings, a legal question emerged regarding the requirements of a plaint in a boundary fixation suit. Earlier decisions of the Kerala High Court had expressed conflicting opinions on whether the defendant’s property must also be separately scheduled and described in such suits.
One judgment had held that because a boundary exists between two properties, both properties should be described in the plaint. Another later judgment took the view that such a requirement was unnecessary.
Court’s Observation
The Division Bench examined Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which requires sufficient description of immovable property to identify it.
The court observed that the dispute in a boundary fixation suit relates to the location of the dividing boundary between neighbouring properties. It noted that a plaintiff may not always know the exact survey number, extent, or other particulars of the defendant’s land.
“The plaintiff cannot be expected to know or be aware of the details of the property of the defendant,” the bench observed while explaining why such a requirement would be impractical.
According to the court, it is enough if the plaintiff properly describes his own property and identifies the common boundary shared with the defendant. Such a description would satisfy the legal requirements for instituting the suit.
The Bench agreed with the view expressed in the earlier decision of Appukuttan Nair v. Sadasivan Nair and declined to follow the contrary view taken in Nandakumara Varma v. Usha Varma.
Issue of Remand Examined
Apart from the legal question, the court also considered whether the first appellate court was justified in sending the dispute back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
The appellate court had ordered a remand after certain property documents were produced during the appeal stage. However, the High Court found that the available evidence, including the commissioner’s report and property records, was sufficient for deciding the dispute.
The Bench observed that further measurement or fresh identification of the property was unnecessary and that the appellate court itself could evaluate the evidence already on record.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Kerala High Court set aside the order of remand passed by the first appellate court.
The Bench directed the appellate court to rehear the appeal and decide the property dispute on its merits based on the evidence already available on record.
The parties were directed to appear before the appellate court on June 23, 2026.
Case Details
Case Title: K.N. Sukumaran Nair v. K.E. Parameswara Pillai
Case Number: FAO (RO) No. 13 of 2025
Judges: Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar
Decision Date: 25 May 2026
