SAYED AKBAR Vs. DHONDIBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from order is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 5th April, 2007 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, at Udgir in R.C.A. No.27 of 2002.

(2.) The appellants herein filed suit for perpetual injunction with declaration of ownership. The said suit was decreed by the trial Court. The trial Court, framed as many as nine issues for its determination and after appreciating the evidence brought on record and after considering the rival submissions, decreed the suit of the appellant herein. The trial Court has considered the matter on various aspects i.e. exclusive ownership of the suit property, exclusive possession, whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are obstructing the possession of the plaintiff, whether the suit property was valued for court fees and jurisdiction and there were other issues also. However, the appellate Court, without going into any other aspects, framed only one point for its consideration i.e. 'whether this is a fit case to remand to the trial Court for inquiry about the valuation of the suit land ' The said issue was answered in affirmative.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the issue which was framed by the appellate Court ought to have been gone into by the appellate Court and the appellate Court was competent to decide and adjudicate the said issue and it was absolutely unwanted to remand the matter back to the trial Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that since the trial Court has taken into consideration all the points and thereafter the suit was decreed, the appellate Court, without framing any other points for its determination, has remanded the matter back to the trial Court. The learned Counsel further submitted that if the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit was not properly valued, the appellate Court was empowered to set aside the judgment of the trial Court. However, it was not proper for the appellate Court to remand the matter back to the trial Court. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy and another Vs. M/s. Pratap Steels Ltd., 2002 AIR(SC) 771 and more particularly, Head Note (B) of the said judgment and submitted that this appeal from order deserves to be allowed.