1. A suit, merely for fixation of boundaries, was decreed by the trial court and the decision was confirmed in appeal. That is how the additional defendants came up in second appeal.

2. There are altogether 25 items in plaint A schedule and 19 items in B schedule. These and other items belonged in Kanam to Nooral Rawther, deceased father of plaintiff and first defendant. First defendant was the sole defendant when the suit was instituted. Rawther gifted A schedule and other items to plaintiff under Ext. A1 and B schedule and other items to the first defendant under Ext. A2 on the same day. A and B schedule items are the properties left after transfers in discharge of the debts mentioned in Exts.A1 and A2. Since there are ever so many pending litigations between the parties in respect of individual items included in Ext. A1 and A2, this suit for fixation of boundaries was filed solely to avoid future disputes and not because there is any existing boundary dispute. Additional defendants 2 to 7 are the children of the first defendant. They were impleaded on the contention of the first respondent that he gifted the properties to them. Maintainability of the suit was also questioned.

3. Appellants contended that (i) item 5 in Ext. A1 is not scheduled in the plaint ; (ii) items 1 to 5 in Ext. A1 were transferred to strangers, who are. in possession ; (iii) item 15 in plaint A schedule is the joint property of plaintiff and first defendant ; (iv) items 17 to 19 in A schedule belong to Beepathumma, sister of plaintiff and first defendant; (v) in A schedule item 22, plaintiff has only half right ; (vi) B schedule items 1 to 8 were transferred to strangers, who are in possession ; (vii) B schedule item 17 is also with strangers ; (viii) and items 27 to 30 in Ext. A2 are not included in the plaint schedule. For these and other reasons, they also challenged maintainability of the suit. These contentions were not in serious dispute also.

4. There is no oral evidence. Parties themselves were not examined. The suit was decided solely on the pleadings, Exts. A1 and A2 and the plan submitted by the Commissioner. The pleas of non-joinder of necessary parties and maintainability of the suit were not at all considered by the trial court. Appellate Judge said that fixation of boundary has nothing to do with title or possession of the properties and the wider question of title or possession of strangers and themselves pleaded by the appellants are matters to be agitated in appropriate proceedings, He confirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal observing that fixation of boundaries is intended to serve only one purpose namely, demarcating the boundaries with reference to the measurements in Exts. A1 and A2 fixed by the Commissioner and the correctness of the boundaries and measurements and other physical features shown in Exts. A1 and A2 are not decided in the suit. So also, the Appellate Judge reserved the rights of the appellants to file separate suits to establish their rights in spite of fixation of boundaries. If the fixation of boundaries is not intended to be binding on anybody interested in the properties, I fail to understand its purpose. A decree is the formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of parties in dispute and judgment is the statement of grounds of a decree or order.

5. A suit for mere fixation of boundaries is also a suit of civil nature contemplated in S.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Cognizance of such a suit is not expressly or by implication barred by any statutory provision including the Survey and Boundaries Act, which provides one remedy in that respect. The decisions of the authorities under the Survey and Boundaries Act are also subject to the decision of the civil court. The only question that may be relevant to the issue in a suit of that nature in the courts in India is whether the suit is one of a civil nature (see P. Narayanan Nair v. E Achuthan Nair and another - 1973 K. L. T. 299 and E. Achuthan Nair v. P. Narayanan Nair and another -AIR 1987 SC 2137 [LQ/SC/1987/606 ;] ), which affirmed the same). But such a suit is definitely subject to the law of the land including the Code of Civil Procedure.... As observed in Narayanan Nairs case (1973 KLT 299) itself, if there is a dispute between two or more parties as regards the location of a boundary and if on demand to cooperate in fixing that boundary it is not given, a suit may also lie at the instance of the demanding party. A suit will also lie where the plaintiff seeks to protect his property by having the boundaries demarcated from that of his neighbour, who threatens encroachment. These are only illustrations. But such a suit could be filed only to enforce a civil right or obligation. If it is merely for ascertaining and fixing the boundaries of his property without any dispute or atleast apprehension of dispute, his remedy may not be before the civil court, but under the Survey and Boundaries Act. Civil courts are not intended to take up the duties of the Survey Department. A mere statement that the first defendant, who has now no rights, was not amenable to fixation of boundary, without anything more, in the nature of the present suit, cannot give rise to a cause of action for the relief claimed.

6. In order to file a suit, the plaintiff must have a cause of action. A suit of a civil nature is one, the object of which is the enforcement of a civil right or obligation. The word civil means "of or becoming a citizen". It must be for enforcement of the rights or obligations of a person as a citizen. Cause of action involves an enforcible right and its infringement. A right to relief in respect of a cause of action against one or more persons must be there as a condition precedent to the filing of a suit. So also, when a suit is filed the rules as to joinder of parties has to be observed. The suit must be filed in such a way that an effective adjudication of the disputes is possible. Persons whose rights are directly affected by the decision and without whom an effective adjudication of the dispute is not possible are necessary parties. Persons having title and possession of the properties and who will be affected by the fixation of the boundaries are necessary parties without whom effective fixation of boundary is not possible. When a suit is disposed of on the basis of pleadings alone without giving the parties an opportunity of adducing evidence, the decision must be on the basis of burden of proof assuming what is pleaded and deciding the burden in that way. Rights of strangers cannot be matters in dispute. I fail to understand how the courts below thought of a I tentative fixation of boundaries liable to be varied later. The suit ought to have been dismissed by the courts below atleast on the ground that necessary parties are not in the array. Even otherwise, such a suit is not maintainable without a cause of action. So also, fixation of boundaries in such a suit could only be after settling various other disputes as to title and possession put forward by the appellants. Fixation of boundary cannot be a short cut to overreach such contentions. Fixing boundaries and then directing the parties to settle their disputes including the correctness of the boundaries elsewhere is not a decision at all.

7. I fail to understand how the boundaries held to be not binding on the parties themselves could be fixed, leave alone the other necessary parties who will be affected by the decision. The disposal of the suit for fixation of boundary is not legal or satisfactory. When boundaries are fixed by the civil court, it is intended to be binding on the parties. When title itself regarding many items was disputed and title and possession with strangers were pleaded, the way in which the suit was disposed of cannot be appreciated. A remand of the suit does not appear to be an effective or feasible solution. It is better to leave the parties to seek their remedies in appropriate proceedings. Second appeal is allowed Decrees and judgments are set aside The suit is dismissed. Cross objection filed by plaintiff challenging the reservations made by the Appellate Judge is also dismissed. No costs.