SHOBHA Vs. RAGHURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the appellants counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case before the trial Court is that the plaintiffs have filed the suit for the relief of possession contending that defendant is a tenant on monthly rent of Rs.50.00 and defendant also claimed the adverse possession in the said suit. The trial Court framed the issues with regard to whether the plaintiff proves that he had title over the A schedule property and B schedule property and defendant proves that he was in possession of A schedule property and he constructed the plaint B schedule house and he perfected the title over the suit schedule property and whether the suit is barred by time and ultimately the trial Court has decreed the suit and the same is challenged before the appellate Court. The appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in he appeal, formulated the points with regard to, whether the plaintiffs were able to establish before the trial Court that defendant was put in possession of B schedule property based on oral lease and also whether there is valid termination and whether the trial Court has framed material issues and first appellate Court comes to the conclusion that these two points does not survive for consideration and comes to the conclusion that issues framed by the trial Court is not proper issues in view of the pleadings between the parties and committed an error and hence allowed the appeal by setting aside the order of the trial Court and remanded the same with a direction to re- admit the same and frame additional issues as suggested by the Court in the body of the judgment in paragraph No.18 and afford opportunity to both the parties in confining to additional issues only and disposal of the matter afresh as early as possible. The said order has been challenged before this Court.

(3.) The counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that no need to remand the matter and already material available before the Court and the appellate Court ought to have considered the same and the very object of framing the issues is, parties to know the lis between them and an opportunity has to be given to both of them to substantiate their contention. When the proper issues are not framed, considering the pleadings of the parties, the first appellate Court rightly remanded the matter to consider the matter afresh in view of additional issues to be framed as already framed by the first appellate Court which is mentioned in paragraph No.18. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the first appellate Court in remanding the matter.