MUNIYANDI GOUNDER AND OTHERS Vs. BOMMAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous appeal is against the order of the learned subordinate Judge allowing an appeal with costs to the plaintiff setting aside the decree of the trial court dismissing the suit and remanding the suit for fresh disposal calling upon the trial court to give findings on the two issues framed by him originally.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, the husband of the plaintiff died. Since the sons were already on record, on 12th November 1951, the second wife of the first defendant was brought on record, while defendants 2 and 3 were recorded as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. The third defendant filed an additional written statement raising the contention that by reason of the death of the first defendant the plaintiff was not entitled to claim any maintenance but could claim only a share in the property equal to that of what her husband was entitled to.

(3.) Defendants 2, 3 and 4 have now preferred this appeal questioning the propriety of the order of remand in view of the observations of the learned Subordinate Judge in paragraph 10 of his judgment already referred to above. Great emphasis has been laid by Mr. K. V. Srinivasa Aiyar the learned counsel for the appellants that when the learned Subordinate Judge stated that the learned District Munsif ought to have found that the suit had abated on account of the death of the first defendant he was not justified in remanding the suit for fresh disposal.