VENGADASALAM Vs. MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree dated 28.11.2009 passed in A.S.No. 1 of 2019 is under challenge in the present civil miscellaneous appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff is the appellant, who instituted the suit for declaration. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The third defendant filed appeal suit in A.S.No. 1 of 2019. The First Appellate Court adjudicated the issues and thereafter arrived at a conclusion that the identification of the suit properties are to be clarified and for the purpose of appointing Advocate Commissioner to identify the property and also to adduce evidence by affording an opportunity to both the parties and the case was remanded back to the trial Court. Challenging the said judgment, the plaintiff filed the present appeal.

(3.) Perusal of the judgment of the First Appellate Court would reveal that all the issues were adjudicated on merits both by the trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. However, the First Appellate Court could not able to decide or found it difficult to identify the properties and on that ground, the case was remanded back to the trial Court for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. In other words, the First Appellate Court found that the trial Court has not considered the aspect with reference to the identification of the suit properties and such an error is to be rectified by remanding the matter back to the trial Court.