In Brief
In a partition suit involving mortgaged property, the appellants sought redemption and recovery of 7.40 acres. The High Court excluded Survey No. 988 from the final decree, relying on the second defendant's non-appeal of the preliminary decree. The Supreme Court held that excluding Survey No. 988 merely because it was not originally described in the plaint schedules violated procedural fairness. Since the defendant consistently objected to the boundaries and claimed rights in Survey No. 988, the trial court should have conducted a proper enquiry with evidence. The Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the final decree application with directions for evidence on the correct survey numbers and boundary descriptions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.