TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 2329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Ernakulam [Hereinafter referred to as, "High Court"] 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, Ernakulam [Hereinafter referred to as, "Trial Court"], 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.122/1955 [Hereinafter referred to as, "sale deed"] fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pondents filed an appeal being R.F.A. No.42 of 2018 before the High Court wherein vide order dated 5th July 2021, the High Court allowed the appeal of the respondents and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for reconsideration of evidence. 3.7 Discontented by the order passed by the High Court, the appellant approached this Court by way of a special leave petition being SLP (C) No. 13602 of 2021 wherein this Court vide order dated 10th April 2023, granted leave and held that the approach of the High Court in passing the remand order was totally erroneous since it lacked necessary reasoning. Therefore, this Court set aside the order of the High Court dated 5th July 2021 and remitted the matter back to the High Court directing to d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvey no.1250. 7. Per Contra, Shri George, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that since the earlier report of the Court Commissioner was not clear, the learned Single Judge of the High Court has rightly remitted the matter back to the Trial Court for appointment of another Court Commissioner in order to decide the matter on merits, after getting their reports. 8. A perusal of the impugned judgment and final order would reveal that the learned Single Judge of the High Court has remitted the matter back to the Trial Court only on the ground that there has been no proper identification of the subject land by the Court Commissioner. The High Court observed that unless such an identification was made, it could not be sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ck to the Trial Court for de-novo disposal. 11. It is clear from the record that in the sale deed, the area of the property shown was 9 cents. The boundaries of all the four sides of the property were also clearly recorded and the survey number mentioned therein was 1236. As already discussed hereinabove, after the appellant's father acquired "Jenmam Rights", the conveyance deed was executed in order to transfer the said rights in favour of the father of the respondents. In the said conveyance deed, though the borders and boundaries were the same and though the area mentioned was also of 9 cents, survey number mentioned therein was 1250. However, this position is clarified by the settlement deed which is executed by the father of the res....