The power of remand by the appellate court should be for exceptional reasons and only after recording reasons for its inability to render judgment on merits.

JUDGMENT

1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the order dtd. 26/7/2016 in C.M.A.No.6 of 2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Hindupur.

2. The petitioners are the defendants and respondent herein is the sole plaintiff. Originally, O.S.No.123 of 2000 was filed for declaration of title and possession with regard to suit schedule property. The case of the plaintiff was that Kotnuru Lingappa, Kotnuru Nadipi Rangappa and Kotnuru Chinna Rangappa were brothers. Kotnuru Lingappa had a son by name Narasimhappa and the plaintiff and his brother Lingappa are sons of Narasimhappa. Nadipi Rangappa had one son by name Guddamappa, who died leaving behind his wife Aswarthamma and his sons Gopalappa and Rangappa. China Rangappa had two wives Obulamma and a teacher Adilakshmamma. The petition schedule property was a self-acquired property of the teacher Adilakshmamma, who died intestate on 24/7/1985. On her death, the property devolved on the heirs of her husband.

3. The Defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.431 of 1985 before District Munsifs Court, Hindupur for permanent injunction against plaintiff and others and was granted temporary injunction in I.A.No.1271 of 1985 on 9/8/1985. The said suit was filed on the basis of a Will executed by late Adilakshmamma on 10/6/1985. The said suit was transferred to Sub-Ordinate Judges Court, Penukonda and was renumbered as O.S.No.18 of 1987 and was tried along with O.S.No.125 of 1980 and a common judgment was passed therein dismissing both suits. Defendant No.1 filed appeal A.S.No.23 of 1988 before Additional District Judges Court, Hindupur and the same was dismissed on 30/11/1988. No further appeal was filed thereon and the suit attained finality.

4. While so, Obulamma i.e wife of Chinna Rangappa executed a registered Will on 18/6/1998 bequeathing all her properties to Gopalappa and others. A settlement was arrived between the plaintiff and Aswarthamma, whereunder Aswarthamma and her sons along with Lingappa relinquished their rights in plaint schedule property by executing registered relinquishment deed dtd. 1/6/1999. In view of the relinquishment deed, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property. Hence, the suit was filed for declaration of right and title and recovery of possession.

5. In the written statement, the defendant denied the claims on Will dtd. 18/6/1998 and that after the death of Adilakshmamma, the petitioner became the absolute owner and notwithstanding the dismissal of O.S.No.431 of 1985, the defendant pleaded that they are entitled to the suit property by adverse possession. The trial Court framed the following three issues:

1. Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and possession?

3. If so, to what relief?

6. The trial Court examined plaintiff himself as P.W.1 and B.Ranganathappa as P.W.2. On behalf of defendants D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Exs.A.1 to A.13 documents were marked. The suit was decreed on 10/12/2004 and an appeal A.S.No.9 of 2005 was filed by the defendants/petitioners herein.

7. In the appellate Court, the petitioners filed a petition I.A.No.198 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 25 C.P.C., for framing additional issues, which reads as under: =Whether the defendants have perfected their right and title over the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession.'

8. The petitioners also filed I.A.No.16 of 2008 and I.A.No.58 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to receive certified copy of decree in O.S.No.33 of 1999 and house tax demand notice apart from letter dtd. 8/7/2004 as additional evidence. The lower appellate Court considering the petitions under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C., framed an issue in the trial Court and instead of remitting for finding on that issue, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and remanded the suit to lower Court with a direction to re-admit the suit in its original number and proceed to determine the suit afresh with regard to adverse possession after c