L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE respondents 2, 3 and 4, in a. s. No. 91 of 2000, on the file of iii additional district judge, ranga reddy district, hyderabad, are the appellants in this c. m. a. they challenge the judgment, dated 22. 7. 2003, passed by the lower appellate court, remanding the matter for fresh disposal to the trial court.

( 2 ) THE first respondent herein filed o. s. No. 385 of 1991, on the file of n additional senior civil judge, ranga reddy district, for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 30. 4. 1987, and for perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. She pleaded that the father of the appellants, by name, jangaiah, who was impleaded as defendant No. 1, was the owner of the land in survey NOS. 17 and 18 of kothaguda village, sherilingampally mandal. He is said to have entered into an agreement of sale in favour of two persons, by name, mallaiah and sathaiah, to sell an extent of one acre of land. It was pleaded that she entered into an agreement of sale, with mallaiah and sathaiah to purchase an extent of 2509 square yards, out of one acre, on 3. 9. 1985. She contended that, at the instance of her proposed vendors, the first defendant himself executed an agreement of sale, dated 30. 4. 1987, to transfer an extent of 1494 square yards, forming part of 2509 square yards referred to, in the agreement of sale, dated 3. 9. 1985. The entire consideration of rs. 44,820/- is said to have been paid, and that possession was also delivered.

( 3 ) THE father of the appellants, the first defendant filed written statement denying the existence of any agreement of sale between himself on the one hand, and mallaiah and sathaiah on the other hand, as well as the execution of the agreement of sale, dated 30. 4. 1987, in favour of the first -respondent.

( 4 ) BEFORE the trial court, pws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the first respondent, and exs. a-1 to a-19 were marked. On behalf of the appellants herein, dws. 1 and 2 were examined and exs. b-1 and b-2, and ex. x-1 were marked. The trial court dismissed the suit, through its judgment, dated 4. 9. 2000.

( 5 ) THE first respondent filed a. s. No. 91 of 2000, before the court of iii additional district judge, ranga reddy. Through the judgment under appeal, the lower appellate court remanded the matter, for fresh disposal, by observing that the reasoning assigned by the trial court for not believing the document exs. a-13 to a- 19, is not sound and that certain additional documents, which were filed by the first respondent through ia NOS. 2931 of 2000 and 76 of 2002, deserve to be taken on record.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, Sri C. V. Nagarjuna Reddy submits that there is a basic fallacy in the order under appeal, in that, the lower appellate court did not set-aside the decree of the trial court while remanding the matter. He further submits that when the trial court framed several issues and additional issues touching on vital aspects of the matter, there was no justification on the part of the lower appellate court to have considered all of them under a single point. He further contends that acceptance of additional evidence, at the stage of an appeal is not a matter of course, and the lower appellate court was under an obligation to assign valid and cogent reasons, before allowing such additional evidence to be taken on record. He contends that the trial court dealt with several contentions, such as, the truth of the agreement of sale between d-1 and the two persons referred to above, that of the agreement of sale, marked as ex. a-10, competence of d-l to transfer the suit schedule property etc. , whereas, the entire discussion undertaken by the lower appellate court turned around the proof and relevance of exs. a-13 to a-19. He contends that before expressing its dissatisfaction about the findings of the trial court, on the said aspect, the lower appellate court ought to have discussed the matter from oth

Click Here to Read the rest of this document