1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.09.2016, whereby the appellate Court has remanded the matter to the Trial Court for framing of necessary issues and deciding the matter afresh, the appellants have filed this appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1 (u) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The principal grievance of the appellants is that there was no need for the appellate Court to remand the matter to the trial Court because both parties were aware about the points in issue on which they had led evidence and the matter had been decided on merits by the trial Court while dismissing the suit. There was no prejudice caused to either party and that therefore, the order of remand was unjustified.

2. The facts leading up of the filing of the instant appeal are that one Mahadeo, father of Bapurao (predecessor of the respondents) and Purushottam (predecessor of the appellants) died, leaving behind the said two sons. The joint family owned two agricultural fields bearing Survey No.519 (New No.508) and Survey No.523/1 (New No.527/1) at Waigon, tahsil Samudrapur, district Wardha. It is the case of the appellants that there was an oral partition between the said Bapurao and Purushottam in which the Survey No.523/1 (New No.527/1) fell to the share of Bapurao and Survey No.519 (New No.508) fell to the share of Purushottam. It is their further case that in order to act upon the said oral partition, Bapurao executed a relinquishment deed on 25.01.1985 with respect to Survey No.519 (New No.508) as it had gone to the share of Purushottam in the said oral partition. In pursuance thereof, the said property bearing Survey No.519 (New No.508) was mutated in the name of Purushottam on 29.10.1990 as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. It is the case of the appellants that the said mutation was carried out after due notice to Bapurao. It is also stated that Bapurao had sold the property which had fallen to his share during his life time.

3. In the year 2002, Bapurao filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the said property bearing Survey No.519 (New No.508), which had fallen to the share of Purushottam in the aforesaid oral partition, claiming a share in the same. But, Bapurao died during the pendency of the said suit and the same abated as his legal heirs were not brought on record.

4. Thereafter, in the year 2007 the respondents being legal heirs of deceased Bapurao filed a fresh suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.33 of 2007 for partition and separate possession in respect of the said property bearing Survey No.519 (New No.508) which was lateron renumbered Regular Civil Suit No.163 of 2008.

5. The appellants, being defendants in the said suit, in the capacity of being legal heirs of Purushottam, filed their written statement opposing the said suit, in which they relied upon the aforesaid oral partition between Bapurao and Purushottam, as also the aforesaid relinquishment deed executed by Bapurao in favour of Purushottam. In the said suit, the trial Court framed the following issues and rendered its findings thereon:-

	ISSUES	FINDINGS
1.	Whether suit property is ancestral property left by Late Mahadeo @ Rodba Kshirsagar?	In the affirmative
2.	Do plaintiffs prove that being L.Rs. of late Bapuraoji Kshirsagar they are having their shares in the suit property?	In the negative
3.	Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession? If Yes, what should be their shares?	In the negative.
4.	In view of abatement in R.C.S.No.69/08(43/2002) whether plaintiffs are entitled to claim the relief as sought?	In the affirmative.
5.	Whether the suit claim is within limitation?	In the affirmative.
6.	Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed?	In the negative.