‘Remitting Matter For De Novo Trial To Delay Proceedings,' SC Takes Exception To Kerala High Court's Order

The Supreme Court has set aside a Kerala High Court order remanding a 14-year-old civil dispute back to the trial court for a fresh hearing, observing that the matter could have been resolved on the basis of a straightforward interpretation of three property documents already on record.

A bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih allowed an appeal filed by Peter Augustine challenging the High Court’s decision to send the case for de-novo adjudication.

The dispute concerns a civil suit seeking a declaration of title, fixation of boundary, and permanent injunction over a parcel of land.

The Top Court found that the sale deed, the conveyance deed, and the settlement deed involved in the case all described the same property, with consistent boundaries and land area, making any further factual inquiry unnecessary.

“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,” the bench observed.

The Supreme Court was particularly critical of the Kerala High Court’s approach, stating that if the Single Judge deemed a fresh report from a court-appointed commissioner necessary, the High Court itself could have sought such a report without sending the matter back. “Even then, the same was not necessary,” the bench added.

Survey Number Discrepancy Addressed

The dispute arose in part due to a discrepancy in the survey numbers mentioned in the documents. The sale deed (No. 122/1955) referred to survey number 1236 and described the property as measuring 9 cents with clear boundaries. The conveyance deed (No. 185/1964), executed after the appellant's father acquired “Jenmam Rights” to the property, described the same boundaries and area but mentioned survey number 1250.

The respondents argued that the discrepancy, coupled with an unclear court commissioner’s report, justified the High Court’s decision to remit the case for fresh adjudication and a new commission report.

However, the Top Court noted that this confusion was resolved in the settlement deed executed on March 22, 1994, by the respondents’ father in favour of one of the respondents. The settlement deed referred to both earlier deeds and recorded survey number 1236, clarifying that the property was one and the same.

Delay Unjustified, Says Court

The Top Court noted that the High Court had remanded the matter solely on the ground that the subject property had not been properly identified by the earlier commissioner.

But given the documentary clarity, the Supreme Court found this basis inadequate.

“Such remand would only prolong an already long-pending litigation,” the Court observed, underscoring that factual clarity had already emerged from the documents on record.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s August 2023 order and directed the Single Judge to decide the appeal on merits based on the documentary evidence already available. It further ordered that the matter be disposed of within six months.

Case Title: Peter Augustine v. K.V. Xavier & Others