IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 FAO.No. 140 of 2008() --------------------- OS.73/2002 of SUB COURT, TIRUR AS NO.107/2005 OF DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(IST RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF0 ---------------------------------------- ACHAMPATT SHAFSI SHAREEF, AGED 19, D/O. ACHAMPATT SHAREEF BABU, PARAPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, THIRURANGADI TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.SETHUMADHAVAN SRI.PUSHPARAJAN KODOTH SRI.K.JAYESH MOHANKUMAR RESPONDENTS(APPELLANT (D1)/DEFENDANTS 2 TO 4) ------------------------ 1. FATHIMA, D/O. ACHAMPATT KUNHALIKUTTY HAJI,, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM DESOM, AMSOM, DESOM, NOW RESIDING IN AISWARYA, VYTTILA DESOM, POONITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DT. 2. KUNHAYIN HAJI, S/O. PULIKKALAKATH KUNHIPOKKARUTTI, AGED 68 YEARS, THIRURANGADI TALUK, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM, DESOM. 3. MUHAMMEDKOYA,S/O.PULIKKALAKATH ABDURAHIMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, THIRURANGADI TALUK, PARAPPANANGADI AMSOM, DESOM. 4. KUNHIKOYAMUTTY NAHA HAJI, S/O. ACHAMPATT KUNHALIKUTTY HAJI, AGED 74 YEARS, KIZHAKKINIYAKATH, THIRURANGADI TALUK, NADUVA AMSOM AND DESOM, RESIDING AT BANGLAVU, MANNARKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. K.RAMACHANDRAN THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A NO. 2218/08 IN F.A.O 140 OF 2008 DISMISSED. 06.06.2008 (Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- F.A.O. No. 140 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of remand passed by the District Judge, Manjeri, in AS No.107/05. Since the matter is remanded and questions are directed to be resolved by the trial court, it is not correct on the part of this court to go into the merits of this case. But the only point that is to be considered is whether the order of remand is against the provisions of law. Now it is a well settled principle that unless there is a substantial question of law even an order of remand cannot be challenged by way of an appeal. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is that he had obtained the property by virtue of a gift deed executed in the year 1988. On the contrary, the 1st defendant in her written statement would contend that she does not dispute about the two rooms which are described in the plaint schedule. The plaint schedule does not give the entire property but it refers to the two rooms. Admittedly there are five rooms in that building. So if the suit for recovery of possession is with respect to the entire property, the entire five rooms should have been shown in the plaint schedule. That is why it is specifically stated in the written statement that the 1st defendant has no objection with respect to the two rooms shown in the plaint schedule. But at the time of consideration of the case, the entire property was considered and thereafter the son of 1st defendant deposed FAO No.140/08 2 before the court that his mother has got oral gift of two rooms in the year 1977. Since there was not a pin-pointed pleading, the court could not have decided that matter as well. The appellate court felt the need of filing an additional written statement and it has been allowed. When there is some doubt cast in the mind of the court for adjudicating the matter for the reason that the pleadings are not so sufficient or the description in the plaint schedule is confusing, there is nothing wrong for a court of law to make the things straight by directing the parties to have their proper contentions and then directing the matter to be decided in accordance with law. I make it clear that this court is not expressing anything on the alleged oral gift or with respect to the declaration of title of the plaintiff for the reason it is a matter that has to be resolved by the court on satisfactorily adducing evidence by the parties. I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this case to entertain this appeal. If amendment of the pleadings becomes necessary in view of the acceptance of a written statement, the plaintiff be permitted to do the same as well. Therefore, the FAO is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps