JUDGMENT : M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM, J. 1. Appellant is the defendant in the suit. Appellant is challenging the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court in an appeal filed by the plaintiff. 2. I heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V. Philip Mathews and the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, Sri. Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken. 3. The suit was one for permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing into the plaint schedule properties. According to the plaintiff/University, the plaintiff obtained plaint A and B schedule properties, as per Exts.A2 and A3 documents. Plaint A schedule property is having an extent of 26 Cents and plaint B schedule property is having an extent of 29 Cents. Both properties together make a compact plot of 55 cents. On the western side of the properties, road is situated. The properties were purchased by the plaintiff at a time when the defendant was the Vice-Chancellor of the plaintiff. The contention of the plaintiff is that the defendant is attempting to trespass on the north-western portion of the plaint schedule properties. 4. The defendant claimed 9.73 Cents of land situated on the north-western side of the plaint schedule property on the strength of Exts. B4, B5 and B6 documents, which were executed during the pendency of the suit. The case of the defendant is that the said properties were under his protection even before the execution of Exts.B4, B5 and B6 documents as the vendors were his close friends. He never tried to trespass onto the plaint schedule property. The entire plaint schedule property does not touch Attukal- Killipalam Road. Most of the western boundary of the plaint schedule property is the property of the defendant. 5. Two Commissions were taken before the Trial Court. Ext.C1 Report is with respect to the commission taken at the time of filing the suit. Later, a Survey Commission was taken and the Commissioner filed Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan. 6. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, granting the permanent prohibitory injunction sought for with respect to the plaint schedule property identified by the Advocate Commissioner in Ext. C2(a) Plan as ‘ABCDEFRSHIJKLMN’ plot. 7. The plaintiff filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court, contending that the identification of the plaint schedule property as per Ext.C2(a) Plan is not correct. C2(a) Plan as ‘ABCDEFRSHIJKLMN’ plot. 7. The plaintiff filed an Appeal before the First Appellate Court, contending that the identification of the plaint schedule property as per Ext.C2(a) Plan is not correct. The plaintiff is having 55 Cents of land, whereas the Commissioner has identified only 52.122 Cents of land in Ext.C2(a) Plan. The plaintiff had produced certain documents along with I.A. No.2 of 2021 before the Trial Court, which would show that no land was acquired from the property belonging to the plaintiff situated in Survey No.1602, which covers the disputed area. 8. The First Appellate Court found that Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan could not be relied on, since the same were prepared without reference to the documents relied on by the parties. The same was measured out, and the properties were identified on the basis of lie and nature. The First Appellate Court has found, from the evidence of PW2 Surveyor and PW3 Commissioner, that it is not possible to identify plaint A and B schedule properties separately from Ext.C2(a) Plan. The Trial Court ought not have decreed the suit relying on Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan. It is also found that the documents produced along with I.A. No.2 of 2021 are material documents and the same should have been considered by the Trial Court. In view of the said findings, the Trial Court judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, allowing I.A. No.2/2021, giving liberty to the parties to file fresh Application for commission and allowing the plaintiff to amend the suit to include the relief of fixation of the boundary and putting up the boundary. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the suit is for injunction simpliciter, the Appellate Court should not have allowed the appeal as the Trial Court decreed the suit with respect to the area found in possession of the plaintiff. The learned counsel contended that the Appellate Court widened the scope of the suit by permitting the plaintiff to amend the suit by incorporating the prayer for the fixation of the boundary. No ground was taken with respect to the non-reception of the documents produced along with I.A. No. 2 of 2021. The learned counsel contended that the Appellate Court widened the scope of the suit by permitting the plaintiff to amend the suit by incorporating the prayer for the fixation of the boundary. No ground was taken with respect to the non-reception of the documents produced along with I.A. No. 2 of 2021. The First Appellate Court illegally allowed I.A. No. 2 of 2021, accepting the documents produced along with it, even without giving any opportunity for the defendant to object to the same. The learned counsel also pointed out that the defendant is aged 86 years, and the First Appellate Court could have decided the matter by itself on the basis of the available evidence or by taking additional evidence and obtaining a commission report by itself instead of remanding the matter back to the Trial Court. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that I.A. No.1803 of 2013 was filed by the defendant himself to identify the plaint A and B schedule properties and the property of the defendant by a Survey Commission. The First Appellate Court set aside the judgment of the Trial Court and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court when it was found that Ext.C2(a) Plan is not satisfactory to identify the plaint schedule properties. Plaint A and B schedule properties were purchased by the plaintiff at a time when the defendant was the Vice Chancellor of the plaintiff. The defendant cannot dispute the extent and boundaries in the Exts.A2 and A3 documents. Exts.A2 and A3 documents would reveal that an extent of 55 Cents is covered by the said documents and the western boundary of the said properties is road. The First Appellate Court could not have decided the matter by itself on the basis of a Commission Report, which was found to be insufficient by it. In order to settle the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, the matter was remanded. The scope of the suit was widened by the defendant himself by seeking a Survey Commission before the Trial Court. When the Survey Commission was not done in a legal manner and the Trial Court passed a decree relying on the same, the plaintiff is fully justified to challenge the same. The scope of the suit was widened by the defendant himself by seeking a Survey Commission before the Trial Court. When the Survey Commission was not done in a legal manner and the Trial Court passed a decree relying on the same, the plaintiff is fully justified to challenge the same. The First Appellate Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the plaint to incorporate the relief of fixation of the boundary in order to adjudicate the dispute effectively. There is no illegality in it. There is no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal against the remand order. 11. I have considered the rival contentions. 12. The plaintiff claims 55 Cents of land as per Exts.A2 and A3 documents. The properties were purchased by the plaintiff when the defendant was the Vice Chancellor of the plaintiff. The defendant claims an extent of 9.73 Cents of land on the basis of Exts.B4, B5 and B6 documents, which were executed during the pendency of the suit. According to the defendant, the said properties were in the management of the defendant as per the instruction of the vendors even before the execution of those documents. The First Appellate Court has found that the said documents cover only an extent of 8.5 Cents of land. As per Ext.C2 Commission Report, the extent found to belong to the plaintiff as per Exts.A2 and A3 is 52.122 Cents instead 55 Cents covered by Exts.A2 and A3. The defendant was found to be in possession of 10.276 Cents of land. So the said extent is much more than the area claimed by the defendant and the area covered by Exts.B4 to B6 documents. The First Appellate Court has found that Ext.C2(a) Plan was prepared not in accordance with the documents relied on by the plaintiff and the defendant, which are Exts.A2 and A3 and Exts.B4 to B6 documents. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the scope of the suit was widened by the defendant himself by filing I.A. No.1803 of 2013, seeking for identification of the properties by a Survey Commission. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the scope of the suit was widened by the defendant himself by filing I.A. No.1803 of 2013, seeking for identification of the properties by a Survey Commission. When the Trial Court has decreed the suit relying on the said survey commission, which is defective according to the plaintiff, the Appellate Court can very well consider the legality of the said contention and if the Appellate Court finds that the Commission Report is unsatisfactory, it is perfectly within the powers of the Appellate Court to remand the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration after obtaining a fresh Commission Report in accordance with law. I do not find any error of illegality in remanding the matter back to the Trial Court by the First Appellate Court on the reason that the Commission Report is insufficient to decide the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. The reasons stated by the Appellate Court for refusing to accept Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan are legal and sound. It is also pertinent to note that the Trial Court recorded that there is no objection to Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan, but in fact, both the plaintiff and the defendant had filed objections to Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan. The Trial Court relied on Exts.C2 Report and C2(a) Plan without considering the objections raised by the parties. On going through the Appeal Memorandum, it is seen that the appellant had raised a specific ground regarding the non-reception of the documents produced along with I.A. No.2 of 2021. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the said Application was filed after concluding the hearing of the suit. Since the Appellate Court has found that the Commission Report is unsatisfactory and the documents produced along with I.A. No.2 of 2021 are material documents, the Appellate Court rightly allowed I.A. No.2 of 2021, accepting the said documents. The said documents are Survey Plan of Survey No.1588 relating to B schedule property and the award details of properties covered by LA 5-1174/03 from the Special Tahsildar (LA), Thiruvananthapuram Fort (Southern Circle). Since those documents are official documents, and if it is beneficial to identify the plaint schedule property, there is nothing wrong in relying on those official records for the identification of the plaint schedule properties. Since those documents are official documents, and if it is beneficial to identify the plaint schedule property, there is nothing wrong in relying on those official records for the identification of the plaint schedule properties. The Appellate Court permitted the plaintiff to amend the suit so as to incorporate the relief of fixation of the boundary for effectively adjudicating the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant. I am of the view that nothing is to be interfered with with respect to the said direction also. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhaga v. Shobha [(2006) 5 SCC 466] and the judgment of this Court dated 31.08.2017 in S.A. No. 684/1998 to substantiate the point that in case of contradictions in the description of property, the boundary shall prevail. The learned counsel cited the decision of this Court in Mathew v. Antony Mathew [2017 (3) KLT SN 18] to substantiate the point that in a suit for injunction, what is relevant and material is only the actual possession of the property, and hence the survey of the property is not at all required. The learned counsel cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Venkatesh v. Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority [2015 AIR SCW 6933] and contended that in the case of vacant land, the plaintiff cannot claim possession. Here is a case where properties have to be identified with reference to the title deeds of the parties. No such attempt was made by the Commissioner and Surveyor. Only after identification of the properties does the question of possession arise, as the disputed area is vacant land, as the principle is that possession follows title. It is true that the suit was only for injunction simpliciter, but the scope of the suit was widened only by the application for survey commission filed by the defendant himself. When the Appellate Court found that the properties are not identified with reference to the title deeds of the parties, the aforesaid decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The question of boundary prevailing extent or other descriptions does not arise, since the properties were not identified with reference to the title deeds of the parties. 14. The question of boundary prevailing extent or other descriptions does not arise, since the properties were not identified with reference to the title deeds of the parties. 14. Accordingly, I do not find any ground or reason or any substantial question of law to interfere with the remand order passed by the First Appellate Court. 15. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is aged 86 years and the suit is of the year 2012, hence, a direction can be issued to the Trial Court for an expeditious disposal of the suit. 16. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed, but the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.