ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 26-10-1992 in AS No. 41 of 1992 on the file of the District Judge, Ongole, which was filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15-6-1992 in OS No. 672 of 1987 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Ongole. The learned District Judge, while allowing the appeal without costs, set aside the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif and remanded the matter for fresh disposal, framing issues which are the points mentioned in his judgment, which is impugned in this Miscellaneous Appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the suit lies in a narrow compass as under:- The defendants, respondents herein, are distantly related to the plaintiff, the appellant herein. The plaintiff purchased suit schedule property from Y. Chandrahasa Rao, under registered sale deed dated 24-2-1987 and ever since the purchase, the plaintiff was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property. The plaintiff purchased the land shown in plaint schedule as items 1 and 2. It is averred that in item No. 2, the plaintiffs vendor raised casurina plantations and along with casurina plantations, the plaintiff purchased the said land. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of the third defendant who is the wife of Thumati Rangayya Chowdary, one of the influential ryots of Maddiralapadu village. Since the defendants arc rich persons, with the assistance of their men, they wanted to dispossess the plaintiff from the plaint schedule lands, she filed the suit.

( 3 ) THE second defendant filed written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable in law and on facts, that Maddiralapadu is an inam village and there are private lands in the inam estate and the suit property is the inam property of Uppala Singaracharuyulu who leased out the schedule land to T. Rangaiah Chowdary, after whose death, the defendants came in possession of the property and the plaintiffs vendor had no title to the lands, that the Inam Abolition Act has no application to the said inam lands and the Inams Deputy Tahsildar, granted patta to the defendants and said Singaracharyulu and the plaintiffs vendor has nothing to convey to the plaintiff, since the defendants are lessees of Singaracharyulu, that the plaintiffs vendor worked as clerk under the defendants and was removed for his misdeeds, that the Land Ceiling Authorities passed orders in CC 420 and 1015/ogl/75, dated 14-4-1987 in which the suit property is shown to be that of Singaracharyulu and the defendants are lessees Neither the plaintiff nor the vendor has ever raised any crop at any time in the suit property.

( 4 ) BASED on the contentions and rival contentions the trial Court framed the following two issues:1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the injunction prayed for ? 2. To what relief?

( 5 ) THE learned District Munsif, on an appraisal of both the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on behalf of both the plaintiff and the defendants, decreed the suit with costs, holding that PW2 was in possession of the plaint schedule property prior to Ex. A1 under Ryotwari Patta granted by the Inams Deputy Tahsildar and subsequently the plaintiff and her husband have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED by the said finding of the learned District Munsif, the defendants preferred AS No. 41 of 1992 before the District Judge, Ongole and the learned District Judge has remanded the matter to the trial Court on the ground that though apparently the suit appears just like a suit for injunction, unless the nature of the suit schedule land is decided and unless the nature of possession of the suit schedule land by PW2, prior to Patta (Ex. A3) is decided, it cannot be said, with respect to the value of the patta, Ex. A3 in the eye of law and consequently the other documents in a series, which came into existence, basing on the patta, Ex. A3, except the Pattedar P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document