(1.) ORDER of remand passed by the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram reversing the decree of dismissal passed in a suit for injunction and remitting the case for fresh disposal, is challenged in this appeal. Defendant in the above suit is the appellant, and respondent, the plaintiff.
(2.) PARTIES are referred to as plaintiff and defendant hereinafter. Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus: Suit was for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Plaintiff claimed title and possession over plaint schedule property having an extent of eight cents under two settlement deeds, Exts.A2 and A3, executed by her grandmother. Plaint property according to plaintiff formed part of 20 cents lying behind the property of the husband of executant of Exts.A2 and A3, situate to the east of M.C.Road. The only access to the plaint property is through a gate installed on its eastern compound wall, to a pathway leading to Kelind line situate on its east. Blocking that gate defendant, adjacent property owner, had put up a wall and, later, he unauthorisedly constructed a car shed demolishing the mud wall separating his property with the plaintiff, was her case. For removal of the wall put up blocking the gate and the car shed illegally constructed, and for restoration of the separating compound wall of the two properties, plaintiff filed the suit seeking the decree of injunction.
(3.) SUIT was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, after trial, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree of injunction applied for. In the appeal by plaintiff after re -appreciating the pleadings and evidence learned District Judge upsetting the findings entered by the Munsiff reversed the dismissal of the suit and remitted the case for fresh disposal with some directions. Impeaching the correctness of that Order, the defendant has preferred this appeal.