NANDAKUMARA VARMA Vs. USHA VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Remand for the sake of remand. Remand though the calls of justice do not demand remand. This is actually what has happened in this case. Waste of time and energy, prejudice to the parties and loss of confidence of the public in the judicial process are the result of unjustified remand, the loss of which is fatal. It is very settled that the power to remand a case shall be exercised only sparingly and the appellate court should make earnest efforts to dispose of the case on merits if evidence on record is sufficient to make an adjudication.

(2.) The plaintiff is the owner of 7 ares 78 sq.links described in the plaint schedule. The first defendant is the owner of the adjoining eastern property. Defendants 2 and 3 are the owners of the northern property adjoining the plaintiff's property. There is no boundary separating the properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants attempted to put up boundary and to construct a road along the northern boundary of the plaintiff's property. These are the allegations on the basis of which the plaintiff sought for fixation of the boundary of her property. The first defendant contended that there is a wall separating his property from the property of the plaintiff. The second and third defendants raised a contention that for more than 15 years a road has been in existence between their property and the plaintiff's property and that there is a wall separating the road and the property of defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) Ext C1 commission report proves that there is a wall separating the properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant. The plaintiff has given up her claim for fixation of the boundary between her property and the property of the first defendant. This issue does not survive now.