A legal dispute of Peter Augustine v/s K.V. Xavier & Others., concerning land ownership, which has been ongoing for over 14 years, has once again been remanded to a lower court, prompting the Supreme Court of India to intervene. The apex court expressed its dissatisfaction with the High Court of Kerala's decision to repeatedly send the case back to the Trial Court for a fresh disposal, especially when the core issue could be resolved through the interpretation of existing documents.
The Genesis of the Dispute:
The saga began with a 1955 sale deed where the appellant's father conveyed "Verumpattom Rights" over 9 cents of land in Survey No. 1236 to the respondents' father. Nine years later, in 1964, a conveyance deed was executed, transferring "Jenmam Rights" over 9 cents of land in Survey No. 1250 from the appellant's father to the respondents' father.
The discrepancy in the survey numbers—1236 in the sale deed and 1250 in the conveyance deed—became a central point of contention. However, a crucial settlement deed from 1994, executed by the respondents' father in favor of respondent No. 1, explicitly clarified that while the conveyance deed mentioned Survey No. 1250, the property was, in fact, included in Survey No. 1236, aligning with the original sale deed.
Prolonged Litigation and Repeated Remands:
In 2011, the respondents filed a suit seeking declaration of title, boundary fixation, and injunction. The Trial Court dismissed the suit in 2017. The High Court, in 2021, allowed the respondents' appeal and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of evidence.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. In April 2023, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's remand order, criticizing the lack of necessary reasoning and directing the High Court to decide the matter afresh.
Despite this clear directive, the High Court, in its January 2024 judgment, once again remanded the suit back to the Trial Court for de-novo disposal, citing the absence of proper identification of the subject land by a Court Commissioner. The High Court also afforded the parties an opportunity to adduce further evidence.
Supreme Court's Intervention:
The appellant again appealed to the Supreme Court. After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court's decision to remand the matter for the second time was based solely on the perceived lack of proper identification of the subject land by the Court Commissioner.
The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court itself observed that the boundary descriptions on all four sides of the property, as per the various deeds (Exhibits A1, A8, A9, and B6), were consistent, despite the discrepancy in the survey number. The Court emphasized that when the area of the property, as well as the borders and boundaries, were the same across all three key documents (sale deed, conveyance deed, and settlement deed), the appeal could have been decided on the interpretation of these documents.
The Supreme Court found that re-appointing another Court Commissioner would only further delay the proceedings, which have already spanned over 14 years. It further noted that if the High Court deemed a commissioner's report necessary, it could have appointed one itself rather than remitting the entire matter.
The Verdict:
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order of remand. It has requested the Single Judge of the High Court to decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance with law and in light of the Supreme Court's observations, as expeditiously as possible, within a period of six months.
This decision underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring timely justice and preventing unwarranted delays in legal proceedings, particularly when the core issues can be resolved through existing evidence and legal interpretation.
