IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 FAO.No. 127 of 2009() --------------------- AS.208/2000 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT-II, MAVELIKARA OS.238/1994 of MUNSIFF COURT,KAYAMKULAM .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3/DEFENDANTS 2 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. MOHANDAS, S/O.JANARDHANAN, AGED 51 YEARS, URUVADAKKATHIL PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALLOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. REMA BAI @ REMA, W/O.MOHANDAS, AGED 41 YEARS, DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.B.RENJITHKUMAR SRI.PADMALAYAN.P.P. RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS & ADDL.RESPONDENTS 5 TO 14: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. V.CHELLAMMA, PADANNATHARA THEKKETHIL VEEDU, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. CHELLAMMA VIJAYAMMA, PADANNATHARA THEKKETHIL VEEDU, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 3. NARAYANA PANICKER VIJAYAN, DO. DO. 4. NARAYANA PANICKER VISWANATHAN, DO. DO. 5. JANARDANAN, URUVADAKKATHIL PEEDIKAYIL VEEDU, PUTHIYAVILAMURI, KANDALOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA. 6. ANANDAVALLY, DO. DO. 7. DEVADASAN, DO. DO. 8. VASANTHA, DO. DO. -2- F.A.O.NO.127/2009 9. VANAJA, DO. DO. 10. CHANDRADAS, DO. DO. 11. SATHYAN, URUVADAKKATHIL PEEDIKAYIL KANDALLOR, ALAPPUZHA. 12. MINI, D/O.AMMINI, NARAYANA BHAVANAM, PUTHIYAVILA MURI, KANDALOOR VILLAGE, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 13. V.MANU, S/O.VIDHAYADHARAN, DO. DO. 14. V.MANEESH, S/O.VIDHAYADHARAN, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.G.RAJEEVKUMAR FOR R5 TO11 SRI.K.HARILAL FOR R1 TO 4 & R12 TO14 SRI.R.GOPAN FOR R1 TO 4 & R12 TO 14 SRI.M.N.SANDEEP FOR R1 TO 4 & R12 TO 14 THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/07/2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.1870/09 IN F.A.O.NO.127/2009 ------------------------ DISMISSED 23/7/2010 Sd/- HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. True Copy HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------ F.A.O.NO.127 OF 2009 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2010 JUDGMENT Defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.238/94 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Kayamkulam are the appellants. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.208/2000 on the file of the Additional District Court-II, Mavelikara. The Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the case for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit. 2. The suit was filed for declaration, fixation of boundary, recovery of possession and injunction. The trial court held that the suit is not maintainable for the reason that it is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties. During the pendency of the suit the lst defendant died. A portion of the B schedule property -2- F.A.O.No.127/2009 admittedly belonged to Basurangi and Rajamma. The trial court held that the suit is not maintainable, since the legal heirs of the deceased lst defendant, the aforesaid Basurangi and Rajamma, who are necessary parties, were not impleaded in the suit. The trial court also decided other issues and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to get a declaration as prayed for and are not entitled to get the boundary of AB schedule properties fixed in accordance with Ext.C2(a) plan and consequential injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit. 3. Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3 and 5 preferred A.S.No.208/2000. In the appeal the questions agitated by the parties before the trial court were re-agitated. The Lower Appellate Court, after considering the matter on merits, set aside the decree and judgment and remanded the case for fresh disposal. The Appellate Court afforded an opportunity to the plaintiffs to implead the necessary parties. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs that after remand, -3- F.A.O.No.127/2009 necessary parties filed application for impleading and the same was allowed by the trial court. Besides the direction for impleading necessary parties, the Appellate Court also issued other directions touching the merits of the case. The Appellate Court further directed the trial court to afford opportunity to both sides to substantiate their contentions. 4. In the circumstances, the challenge against the remand order cannot stand. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to raise all the contentions available to them. They are also at liberty to adduce further evidence, if so advised. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as above. No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE. kcv -4- F.A.O.No.127/2009