### Scheduling defendant’s property in plaint is not mandatory for maintaining a suit for fixation of boundary.

The appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for fixation of boundary and prohibitory injunction against the respondent (defendant).

The dispute originated from a series of property transfers between extended family members and the parties involving adjacent land parcels originally under a 1925 partition deed.

The central dispute concerns a narrow strip of land marked as 'CHVDC' in the Commissioner’s plan.

The Trial Court decreed the suit based on the Commissioner's report. On appeal, the First Appellate Court set aside the decree and remanded the case for fresh identification after new documents (Exts. A5, B1, and B2) were produced.

A reference was also made to the Division Bench to resolve a conflict between Nandakumara Varma v. Usha Varma (holding that both plaintiff and defendant properties must be scheduled) and Appukuttan Nair v. Sadasivan Nair (holding it unnecessary).

Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which requires a description of immovable property sufficient to identify it via boundaries or survey numbers.

The precedent in Appukuttan Nair v. Sadasivan Nair [2022 (7) KHC 250], which held that describing a common boundary is sufficient compliance with the CPC.

The principles in Kallara Sukumaran v. Union of India and Rasheed v. Food Inspector, which dictate that a Division Bench resolving a reference should adjudicate the entire appeal rather than merely answering the question.

The court reasoned that a plaintiff seeking boundary fixation often lacks specific title details of the neighbor's property; thus, identifying the common boundary in the plaintiff's own schedule satisfies Order VII Rule 3.

The court noted that the actual dispute was restricted to a specific plot ('CHVDC') already identified by the Commissioner.

The court found that the First Appellate Court possessed all necessary documents (Exts. A5, B1, B2) and the Commissioner’s plan to resolve the dispute through textual interpretation of the sale deeds and boundary recitals.

A fresh measurement (remand) was redundant because the identity of the physical strip was known; only the legal question of ownership based on existing evidence remained.

The court held that the remand was an erroneous exercise of jurisdiction as the appellate court had sufficient materials to decide the case on merits.

The court set aside the remand order and directed the First Appellate Court to re-hear and decide the appeal on its merits based on the existing evidence. Parties were directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 23.06.2026.