Madras High Court
A.P.Karunakaran (Died) vs A.P.Rajavenkateswaran on 18 February, 2021
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
M.P.Nos.1, 1, 2 and 2 of 2011
C.M.A.No.1880 of 2011
1.A.P.Karunakaran (Died)
2.A.K.Prabahar
(A2 brought on record as LR of the deceased sole appellant
viz A.P.Karunakaran vide order dated 04.01.2021
made in C.M.P.Nos.4992 &4993 of 2017
in C.M.A.No.1880 of 2011) .. Appellants
vs.
1.A.P.Rajavenkateswaran
2.Rajeswari @ Ramayal
3.A.R.Rajkumari
4.A.M.Raja
5.R.Sivakolundhu
6.A.R.Rajkumar ..Respondents
C.M.A.No.1884 of 2011
1.A.P.Karunakaran (Died)
2.A.K.Prabahar
(A2 brought on record as LR of the deceased sole appellant
viz A.P.Karunakaran vide order dated 04.01.2021
made in C.M.P.Nos.4994 &4995 of 2017
in C.M.A.No.1884 of 2011) .. Appellants
vs.
1.A.M.Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
2.R.Sivakolundhu
3.A.R.Rajkumar
4.A.P.Rajavenkateswaran
5.Rajeswari @ Ramayal
6.A.R.Rajkumari ..Respondents
COMMON PRAYER : Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Order 43
Rule 1 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 made in
A.S.Nos.12 & 7 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam
remanded back to the trial Court by reversing the judgment and decree dated
17.11.2009 made in O.S.No.418 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Gobichettypalayam.
In both appeals
For Appellants : Mr.T.Murugamanickam
Senior counsel for
M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
For Respondents : Mr.N.Manokaran
for RR 4 to 6
No-appearance for RR1 & 2
R3-No such address
COMMON JUDGMENT
The judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 passed in A.S.Nos.12 & 7
of 2010 are under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeals.
2. The plaintiff is the first appellant and the suit was instituted for
mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant and
the defendants filed two sets of appeals in A.S.Nos.72 and 12 of 2010
challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.418 of 2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
3. The First Appellate Court remanded the matter back mainly on the
ground that the suit properties were not properly demarcated and a qualified
surveyor is to be appointed and the properties are to be measured and the
report is to be submitted. For that purpose, the suit is to be remanded back
to the trial Court. The findings in this regard by the First Appellate Court
reads as under:
Mdhy; Mizah; mwpf;ifapnyna tlg[w
vy;iy nfhoapy; 20 mo mfyj;jpw;F ghij
cs;sJ/ mJ bjd;g[wkhfr; bry;yr;bry;y
FWFtjhf mwpf;if jhf;fy; bra;jpUg;gjpypUe;Jk;.
nkYk; thjpapd; nkw;F vy;iyia xl;oa gid
ku';fs; jhd; 30 taJila ku';fshf cs;sjhf
mwpf;ifapy; fhz;gpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhYk;. mjw;F
nkg[wkhf cs;s ku';fs; 15?ypUe;J 20 tUl';fs;
jhd; Md ku';fs; vd;W mwpf;if jhf;fy;
bra;jpUg;gjhYk;. thjp jug;gpnyna jhf;fy;
bra;ag;gl;Ls;s th/rh/M/1?y; bjd;tlyhfr; bry;Yk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
ghijf;F fpHf;F vd;W brhy;yg;gl;Ls;sjhYk;. me;j
ghfg; gphptpid gj;jpukhdJ 1975 Mk;
tUlj;jpnyna Vw;gl;lJ vd;gjhYk;. ,e;j tHf;F
tUl';fshfpa[s;sjhYk;. Mdhy; tz;og;ghijia
xl;oa fpHg[wKs;s ,lj;jpy; 10 Kjy; 15 tUl';fs;
tajhd ku';fns cs;sjhf mwpf;if jhf;fy;
bra;Js;sjhYk;. me;j mog;gilapy; thjpf;F caph;
ntyp ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W jPh;khdpf;f KoahJ/
me;j mog;gilapy; thjpf;F ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W
tprhuiz ePjpkd;wk; jPh;khdpj;J ,Ug;gJ
rhpahdjy;y vd;Wk;. nkYk;. ,e;j tHf;ifg;
bghWj;j tiuapy;. thjp th/rh/M 1 ghfg;
gphptpidg; gj;jpuj;jpd; mog;gilapy; jdf;F 5/05
Vf;fh; g{kp rh;nt vz;/75-3?y; ghj;jpag;gl;ljhf
Mtzk; jhf;fy; bra;Js;shh;/ mnj nghy
tz;og;ghijahdJ. rh;nt vz;/69?y; bry;fpwJ
vd;gJ ,U jug;ghYk; xg;g[f; bfhs;sg;gl;l r';fjp.
Mdhy; thjp epy';fSf;F nky;g[wkhf cs;s
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
caph;ntyp rh;nt vz;/75-3?y; tUfpwjh> my;yJ
rh;nt vz;/69?y; tUfpwjh> vd;gJ eph;zapf;fg;gl;lhy;
jhd; mJ thjpf;F ghj;jpag;l;ljh> my;yJ bghJ
tz;og;ghijf;F ghj;jpag;gl;ljh> vd;gJ
jPh;khdpf;fKoa[k;. Mdhy;. ,e;j tHf;fpy; Mizah;
epakdk; bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhYk;. epy msitah;
cjtpa[ld; eph;zak; bra;ag;gl;L. jhthr; brhj;J
rh;ntah; tiuglj;jpd; mog;gilapy; rh;nt vz;/75-3.
69?y; vjpy; tUfpwJ vd;W eph;zak;
bra;ag;gltpy;iy/ vdnt jhthr; brhj;J rh;nt
vz;/75-3?y; tUfpwjh> my;yJ rh;nt vz;/69?y;
tUfpwjh> vd;gij rh;ntah; cjt[a[ld;
msf;fg;gl;lhy; jhd; eph;zapf;f Koa[k; vd;gjhYk;.
,e;j tHf;fhdJ btWk; epue;ju cWj;Jf; fl;lisg;
ghpfhuj;jpw;F kl;Lk; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;oUe;jhYk;.
tHf;fpy; brhj;jpd; chpik Fwpj;J incidental Mf
Kot[ bra;ayhk; vd;W gy;ntW cah;ePjpkd;w
jPh;g;g[fspy; brhy;yg;gl;oUg;gjhYk;. ,e;j tHf;fpy;
jhthr; brhj;J rh;nt vz;/75-3?y; tUfpwjh>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
my;yJ 69?y; tUfpwjh> vd;gJ jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;lhy;
jhd; ,e;j tHf;fpy; jPh;t[ fhz ,aYk; vd;gjhYk;.
jhth caph;ntyp g[y vz;/75-3?y; tUfpwjh> my;yJ
g[y vz;/69?y; tUfpwjh> vd;gij mwpa[k; bghUl;L.
nkw;go g[y';fspd; ,aw;ifaikg;g[ kw;Wk; nkw;go
g[y vz;fspd; vy;iyfis eph;zak; bra;a[k; tz;zk;
nkw;go ,uz;L g[y vz;fis Mizah;epy
msitah; cjt[a[ld; mse;J mwpf;if kw;Wk;
tiuglk; jhf;fy; bra;a[k; bghUl;L ,e;j tHf;fpid
kPz;Lk; tprhuizf;fhf. tprhuiz ePjpkd;wj;jpw;F
kPl;lDg;g[if bra;tJ ePjpapd; bghUl;L cfe;jJ
vd;W fUjp. ,e;j ,uz;L nky;KiwaPLfSk;.
mDkjpf;fg;gl;L. tprhuiz ePjpkd;w jPh;g;g[iu kw;Wk;
jPh;g;ghiz uj;J bra;ag;gl;L. tprhuiz ePjpkd;w
tHf;F kPl;lDg;g[if bra;ag;gLfpwJ/
4. The question arouse, whether the ground relied on by the First
Appellate Court for remanding the matter back to the trial Court is in
consonance with the spirit of Order XLI Rule 23 and Rule 23(A) of C.P.C
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
or not?
5. Order XLI Rule 23 of C.P.C stipulates that the Appellate Court shall
remand the matter back to the trial Court for re-adjudication or conducting a
fresh trial or to take additional evidence or otherwise, only if the trial Court
disposed of the case based on certain preliminary issues without any
complete adjudication of the issue.
6. If the trial Court substantially adjudicated the issues and findings are
provided, then it would not be appropriate on the part of the First Appellant
Court to remand the matter back for re-trial. Such lapses if any, or omission
or commission are noticed by the Appellate Court are to be filled up by
accepting additional documents or taking further evidence. Such an exercise
is well within the powers of the Appellate Court. Section 107 of C.P.C
contemplates that the Appellate Court is empowered to pass final orders by
accepting additional documents or framing additional issues or appreciate or
re-appreciate the documents and evidences. This being the powers conferred
on the Appellate Court, Courts are always expected to decide the matter
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
finally, instead of remanding the matter back. It would cause great prejudice
to the interest of the litigants. Remanding the matter, of course, may be an
easy way out for the Courts. Courts are expected not to resort such practice,
instead of deciding the matter finally, if necessary, accepting additional
documents or otherwise including the appointment of Commissioner to
identify the property as such. Order XLI Rule 24 of C.P.C clarifies that the
appeal suits are to be decided finally. When the evidence and the documents
available are sufficient to dispose of the matter, then the Appellate Court
may determine the suit finally. Where the evidence upon the record is
sufficient to enable the Appellate Court to pronounce judgment, the
Appellate Court may, after resettling the issues, if necessary, finally
determine the suit, notwithstanding that the judgment of the court from
whose decree the appeal is preferred has proceeded wholly upon some
ground other than that on which the Appellate Court proceeds.
7. In the present case, when the Appellate Court formed an opinion that
the demarcation of the property is not properly done, then it is well within
its powers to appoint a Qualified Surveyor or Commissioner to do the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
exercise and consider the matter on merits and pass orders by affording
opportunity to the parties to the appeal suit.
8. This being the principles to be adopted, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the reasons considered for the purpose of remand of
the suit is not in consonance with the principles enumerated under Order
XLI Rule 23, Rule 23(A), Rule 24 and Rule 25 of C.P.C. Thus, the
judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.7 & 12 of 2010
are set aside and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.1880 & 1884 of 2011
are allowed. No costs.
9. The First Appellate Court is directed to restore the appeal suits and
appoint a qualified surveyor, if necessary, adjudicate the matter on merits
and in accordance with law by affording opportunity to the parties to the
appeal suits and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order. The parties to the appeal suits are restrained from seeking
adjournments on filmsy grounds. Even on genuine grounds, the reasons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
must be recorded by the Appellate Court. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
18.02.2021
ssb
Index: Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-Speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
ssb
To
1.Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam
2.District Munsif Court, Gobichettypalayam.
C.M.A.No.1880 & 1884 of 2011
18.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
