IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.12.2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN C.M.A. No. 703 of 2002 Abdul Muthaleef .. Appellant Versus 1. Ramasamy Padayachi (died) 2. Chellammal (died) 3. Tmt. Saroja 4. R. Rajendran 5. R. Raja 6. Tmt. Chandra 7. Tmt. Shanthi (Respondents 3 to 7 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased first respondent as per order dated 07.12.2011 in CMP No. 3039 of 2007 in CMA No. 703 of 2002) .. Respondents Appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (u) of C.P.C. Against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.2001 made in A.S. No. 5 of 1989 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 20.11.1987 made in O.S. No. 79 of 1981 on the file of District Munsif Court, Jayamkondan. For Appellant : Mr. S. Kamadevan For Respondents : Mrs. Mythili Suresh for RR3 to 7 JUDGMENT The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 79 of 1981 is the appellant in this appeal. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/appellant for declaration to declare that the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff and consequential injunction. The suit was decreed with costs on 20.11.1987. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd Defendant in the suit namely Ramasamy Padayachi filed A.S. No.5 of 1989 before the first Appellate Court. The first appellate Court, by the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2001, set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. As against the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. Pending the present appeal, the second defendant/first respondent herein died and his legal heirs were brought on record as respondents 3 to 7 in this appeal. The learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant would contend that earlier, the suit was decreed by the trial Court against which an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court, remanded the matter back to the trial Court for the purpose of appointing an advocate commissioner. Based on the report of the advocate commissioner, an application for amendment was filed for change of the survey number before the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court once again decreed the suit as prayed for against which the appeal in A.S. No. 5 of 1989 rsh To The Principal Subordinate Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Virudachalam