Case Notes & client reviews
Proud of Our Record
Reviews and Testimonials
Director
Kochi based FMCG Company
Blackridge handled our company's acquisition with remarkable thoroughness. Clear communication throughout, zero surprises.”
5 / 5
Former Employee
IT sector, Trivandrum
I was lost after my workplace dispute. The team at Blackridge understood the human side of it, not just the legal side.
5 / 5
Managing Partner
Kochi Accounting Firm
Their tax advisory literally saved our firm from a major compliance issue. Sharp, responsive, and genuinely invested.
5 / 5
Case Notes
Sukumaran Nair v. Parameswara Pillai — 2026 (3) KLT 633
Where:
High Court of Kerala (Division Bench)
Attorney in Charge:
Sanil Jose, Bonny Benny
Citation: 2026 (3) KLT 633 | 2026:KER:36125 | F.A.O. (RO) No. 13 of 2025 (arising from A.S. 87/2018, Additional District Court-IV, Kottayam) | Decided 25 May 2026
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Krishna Kumar
Subject: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order VII Rule 3 (description of immovable property in a suit for fixation of boundary); and the scope of remand by the first appellate court where materials on record are sufficient to decide the matter.
Background: The reference arose from conflicting single-judge views on whether, in a suit for fixation of boundary, the defendant's property must be separately incorporated in the schedule to the plaint — one view requiring it (Nandakumara Varma v. Usha Varma, 2015 (1) KLJ 73) and another holding it unnecessary (Appukuttan Nair v. Sadasivan Nair, 2022 (7) KHC 250).
Principle settled (Order VII Rule 3): In a suit for fixation of boundary, it is not mandatory to incorporate the defendant's property in the schedule to the plaint. While describing the plaintiff's property, it is sufficient to indicate the common boundary shared with the defendant. Such a description satisfies the requirements of Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court expressed agreement with the view taken in Appukuttan Nair (2022).
Principle on remand: Where the materials necessary for the proper determination of the issues are already available before the first appellate court, a remand to the trial court is unnecessary. On the facts, the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan had sufficiently identified the property, and a further identification by measurement was not required; the first appellate court was to appreciate the evidence on record and decide the matter itself.
Disposition: The Division Bench, in view of the settled position that a reference is not to be answered in isolation where the appeal can be disposed of, proceeded to dispose of the appeal itself. The order of remand was set aside, and the first appellate court was directed to re-hear and decide the appeal on its merits.
This note is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reference should be made to the full text of the reported judgment for authoritative content.