SUMATHY AMMA Vs. THANKAPPAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS in O. S. 65/1995 on the file of munsiff court, Perumbavoor who are respondents in a. S. 245/2004 on the file of Additional District court, north Paravur are the appellants. They are challenging the order of remand passed by Additional District judge in A. S. 245/2004. Respondent is the plaintiff who is sole appellant in the first appeal. Suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction. Learned munsiff on the evidence dismissed the suit holding that respondent did not establish his title to the plaint schedule property. It was challenged before the Additional District court in A. S. 245/2004. Learned Additional District Judge on hearing the appeal found that respondent/plaintiff and appellants/defendants are claiming right under the very same Ext. A1 partition deed and the dispute is whether the disputed portion falls part of the property allotted to the appellants or respondent. It was found that identification of the property by the commissioner was not proper and therefore, it is necessary to identify the property. The suit was remanded after setting aside the decree and judgment of trial court. It is challenged in this appeal.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for appellants and respondent were heard.

(3.) ARGUMENT of the learned counsel appearing for appellants is that though the order of remand is justifiable, the directions in the order of remand is illegal and therefore those directions are to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing for respondent submitted that proper identification of the property is necessary and in such circumstances order of remand is perfectly correct and warrants no interference.