KASULANATI LAKSHMI NARASAMMA Vs. CHINTALAPALLI VENKATA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed against an order of remand of the appellate court while setting aside the decree of the trial Court for a sum of Rs. 1300/-directed the trial Court to frame appropriate issues and dispose of the suit according to law after giving an opportunity to the parties.

(2.) The circumstances under which the suit came to be filed are that the res- pondent-plaintiff and the appellants- defendant 1 and 2 are co-owners and the 3rd appellant was inducted as a tenant of the appellants 1 and 2. The respondent had a half share and the appellants 1 and 2 had half share in the plaint schedule property The respondent laid the suit for rendition of account of his share of the profits which the appellants 1 and 2 had realised from the lands. Parties went into trial on their account The trial court held that since the parties are co-owners having co extensive right in the property the suit to render account is not maintainable However, it decreed that the suit for sum of a Rs. 1300/- being the share of the respondent- Dissatisfied with the decree, the appellants carried the matter in appeal to the lower Court. The lower court while agre'eing with the trial court that the suit is not maintainable as stated earlier, remanded for fresh trial after framing appropriate issues for awarding compensation. Assailing this part of the decree, of remand the present C M A has been filed.

(3.) Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the remand order is wholly illegal having held that suit for rendition of account is not maintainable and there is ho whisper in the plaint that the respondent claimed by way of compensation, the suit ought to have been dismissed. Though notice has been served on the respondent, he is neither appearing in person nor through counsel. I have gone through the judgment of the court below with the aid of Sri Bali Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants.