The court emphasized that a remand should only be ordered if the findings recorded by the trial court are erroneous or unsustainable, and the lower appellate court must discuss the entire evidence on record to justify the remand.

( 1 ) MISCELLANEOUS Second Appeal No. 37 of 1980 by the defendants is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-11-1979 passed by the Civil Judge, yadgir in Regular Appeal No. 41 of 1979 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1975 passed by the Munsiff, chittapur, in Original Suit No. 25 of 1973 and remanding it to the inactment.

( 2 ) MISCELLANEOUS Second Appeal No. 38 of 1980 by the plaintiffs is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-11-1979 passed by the Civil Judge, yadgir, in Regular Appeal No. 40 of 1979 reversing the judgment and decree dated 18-4-1975 passed by the Munsiff, chittapur in Original Suit No. 22 of 1973 and remanding the matter to the trial court for frerh disposal.

( 3 ) THE appellants in both these appeals are the plaintiffs ir Original Suit no. 22 of 1973. The respondent in both the appeals was the defendant in Original suit No. 22 of 1973 and the plaintiff in original Suit No. 25 of 1973. The appellants filed Original Suit no. 22 of 1973 for declaration of their ownership in respect of land bearing survey No. 50/1, hissa-1 and also for an injunction restraining the respondent from taking the water of the suit well for irrigation through their land Survey no. 50,1, hissa 1 to his land Survey No. 50/3. The respondent who is the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 25 of 1973, filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing and interfering with the use and enjoyment of the water of the common well situated in Survey No. 50/1 of Chikalur, during his turn coming on Sunday and Monday every week. According to him, he is the owner of Survey No 50/3 measuring 25 guntas and also Sy, No. 50/1 hissa No. 2 measuring 2 guntas.

( 4 ) BOTH the suits were resisted.

( 5 ) COMMON evidence was recorded relating to both the suits in Original suit No. 22 of 1973, but separate judgments have been written in both the cases. The Munsiff, on appreciation of the evidence decreed Original Suit No. ' 22 of 1973 and dismissed Original Suit no. 25 of 1973. The respondent being aggrieved by the judgments in both the cases, filed Regular Appeal No. 40 of 1979 against the judgment and decree in original Suit No. 22 of 1973 and filed regular Appeal No. 41 of 1979 against the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 25 of 1973. The learned civil Judge setting aside the judgements and decrees passed by the Munsiff in both the suits, remanded both the suits to the trial court for fresh disposal according to law, advising the plaintiff to get a Commissioner appointed to find out the location of the well, and to give an opportunity to both sides to lead somemore fresh evidence. The appellants in both these appeals, being aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, remanding both the suits, have come up with these two appeals.

( 6 ) THE appellants examined Gopreddy (one of the plaintiffs) and two witnesses, Somnath Pw. 2 and Shankarappa Pw. 3 and market Exs. P. 1 to P. 13. The respondent examined himself as Dw. 1 and two more witnesses Devendrappa dw. 2 and Sidramappa Dw. 3 and markedex. D. 1. Thus, it becomes crystal clear that both the parties have led more than sufficient evidence in both the matters. The lower appellate court thought that it was necessary to find out the, location of the well and hence, it thought that the appointment of the Commissioner would help the disposal of the points in dispute between the parties. Neither parties had prayed for appointment of the Commissioner, either in the trial court or in the first appellate Court. No application was given by either of the parties either in the Munsiff Court as well as in the lower appellate court for the appointment of a Commissioner. Even a ground was not made out in the appeal memos that the lower court erred in not appointing a Commissioner in order to locate the well. That, does not appear to bb the line of arguments adopted by both the parties in the lower appellate court. The lower app