ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. We have heard Mr. V. Chitambaresh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondent-original plaintiff.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Regular Second Appeal No. 628 of 2011, by which the High Court has allowed the said Second Appeal and has remanded the matter to the learned trial Court by upsetting the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below and not only that but has also permitted the original plaintiff to amend the plaint and incorporate the prayer of fixation of the boundary, which was never prayed, the original defendant has preferred the present Appeal.

4. The Respondent herein filed a civil suit before the learned trial Court asking for a simple prayer of permanent injunction/prohibitory relief only. The learned trial Court framed the following issues:-

“1) Whether the plaintiff is having title and possession over the plaint schedule property?

2) Whether the plaint schedule properties are identified?

3) Whether the cause of a