ASHARAM Vs. PRABHULAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9-9-2003 passed by ADJ, Fast Track, Shujalpur in civil regular appeal No. 52-A/2003 whereby the judgment and decree dated 26-4-2002 passed by Civil Judge, Class-I, Shujalpur in civil suit No. 52-A/2000 has been set-aside and the case has been remanded back, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) Short facts of the case are that the appellant Asharam and Motilal father of respondent No. 1 are the real brothers. Appellants filed suit against the respondent No. 1 wherein it was prayed that it be declared that appellant and respondent No. 1 are owners of the suit property and having 1/2 share in the suit property, in a partition which has taken mutually in the year 1995-96. It was further alleged that partition has taken place between the parties mutually. Along with suit map was filed in which the landlord is shown in various survey numbers in red colour and land shown in blue colour is shown as property of the respondent No. 1. After trial of the suit the same was decreed by the Court below. In appeal, learned appellate Court has remanded the case holding that the map filed alongwith plaint does not indicate the four boundaries and the measurement. It is further observed that map does not fulfill the requirement of Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code and sub-clause 4 of Clause 38.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Court below committed error in remanding the case. It is submitted that for the purpose relevancy it is not necessary to submit the details of four boundaries.