LexPETER AUGUSTINE versus K.V. XAVIER AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1007 : 2025 INSC 771 Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier and Others (Civil Appeal No. 7160 of 2024) 23 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai, CJI* and Augustine George Masih, J.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether High Court was justified in remitting the matter back to the trial court on the second occasion, for de-novo disposal. Headnotes† Remand – Remand by High Court – Property dispute between the parties – High Court remitting the matter to the trial court on the second occasion for de-novo disposal – Correctness: Held: High Court 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 – Appeal could have been very well decided on the basis of the interpretation of sale deed, conveyance deed and 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 – High Court itself could have appointed the Court Commissioner and called for the report – High Court erred in remitting the matter on the second occasion – High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously. [Paras 8, 13-15] List of Keywords Remand; Sale deed; Conveyance deed; Court Commissioner; Remitting matter on second occasion; Further delay of proceedings; Remitting the matter back to the trial court for de-novo disposal; Property dispute; Proper identification of the land by Court Commissioner; Interpretation of sale deed, conveyance deed and settlement deed; Matter pending for more than 14 years. * Author 1008 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7160 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.01.2024 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in RFA No. 42 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv., Tomy Chacko, Ms. Lakshmi Kg, Ms. Tualia Rehman, Ashish Jacob Mathew, Shubhankar Sharma. Advs. for the Respondents: Manoj V George, Ms. Shilpa Liza George, Bibhu Dutta Das, Nasib Masih, Azeem Samuel, Ms. Brinda, Ms. Antra Srivastava, Raja Ramalingam Sethupathi R. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment B.R. Gavai, CJI 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal challenges the judgment and final order dated 9th January 2024 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam1 in R.F.A. No.42 of 2018 whereby the learned Single Judge of the High Court set aside the judgment of the Principal Sub Court, Ernakulam2, allowing the appeal filed by the respondents and remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for de-novo disposal. 3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under: 3.1 On 8th February 1955, father of the appellant executed a sale deed being Sale Deed No.122/19553 for a consideration of Rs.500/-, conveying the “Verumpattom Rights” over 9 cents of land in Survey No.1236 in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam, pertaining to Kallor Mana in favour of the father of the respondents. 1 Hereinafter referred to as, “High Court”. 2 Hereinafter referred to as, “Trial Court”. 3 Hereinafter referred to as, “sale deed”. [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1009 Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier and Others 3.2 Subsequently, on 13th February 1964, father of the appellant executed a conveyance deed being Conveyance Deed No.185/19644 for a consideration of Rs.100/-, transferring the “Jenmam Rights” over 9 cents of land in Survey No.1250 in Poomthura Village, Ernakulam5 in favour of the father of the respondents. 3.3 In the year 1993, it appears that 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. 3.4 In the meantime, on 22nd March 1994, the father of the respondents executed a settlement deed being Settlement Deed No.1560/19946 in favour of respondent No.1 over the land obtained under Sale Deed No.122/1955 and Conveyance Deed No.185/1964. 3.5 In order to resolve the dispute over the subject land, the respondents herein filed a suit being O.S. No.246 of 2011 before the Trial Court seeking declaration of title, fixation of boundary and injuncti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.