1. Order of remand passed by the learned District Judge, Thiruvananthapuram reversing the decree of dismissal passed in a suit for injunction and remitting the case for fresh disposal, is challenged in this appeal. Defendant in the above suit is the appellant, and respondent, the plaintiff.

2. Parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant hereinafter. Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus:

Suit was for injunction, both prohibitory and mandatory. Plaintiff claimed title and possession over plaint schedule property having an extent of eight cents under two settlement deeds, Exts.A2 and A3, executed by her grandmother. Plaint property according to plaintiff formed part of 20 cents lying behind the property of the husband of executant of Exts.A2 and A3, situate to the east of M.C. Road. The only access to the plaint property is through a gate installed on its eastern compound wall, to a pathway leading to Kelind line situate on its east. Blocking that gate defendant, adjacent property owner, had put up a wall and, later, he unauthorisedly constructed a car shed demolishing the mud wall separating his property with the plaintiff, was her case. For removal of the wall put up blocking the gate and the car shed illegally constructed, and for restoration of the separating compound wall of the two properties, plaintiff filed the suit seeking the decree of injunction.

3. Defendant resisted the suit questioning the title deeds, Exts.A1 and A2, as sham documents and disputing the right claimed by plaintiff over the pathway leading to Kelind line from the eastern side of her property. Defendant contended that the pathway over which plaintiff claimed right formed part of 83 cents in Survey No.618 belonging to the predecessors of his transferor in Ext.B2 sale deed. According to defendant when a partition was effected by his transferor with her sister under Ext.B1 deed excluding the properties already transferred, a pathway was provided for their convenient enjoyment of the divided items. Defendant under Ext.B2 sale deed obtained 6.625 cents of land from one among the sharers in Ext.B1 partition deed and that property is situate on the north western side of the pathway provided under that partition deed. Over the pathway plaintiff has no right and the documents obtained in her favour, Exts.A2 and A3, were fraudulently created to set up a claim over the private pathway was his case contending that to the existing temporary car shed in his property some maintenance works alone were done. Allegations imputed over the blocking of gate, destruction of compound wall separating the properties of plaintiff and defendant, construction of car shed etc. were also repudiated by defendant.

4. Suit was dismissed by the learned Munsiff, after trial, holding that the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree of injunction applied for. In the appeal by plaintiff after re-appreciating the pleadings and evidence learned District Judge upsetting the findings entered by the Munsiff reversed the dismissal of the suit and remitted the case for fresh disposal with some directions. Impeaching the correctness of that Order, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

5. I heard the counsel on both sides.

6. After going through the pleadings of parties and also materials tendered, with reference to the submissions made by counsel, I find that the one and only issue that required to be considered and decided by the court in the suit was not taken note of either by the trial court or lower appellate court even when it reversed the decree of dismissal and remitted the case for fresh disposal. What was in dispute to be adjudicated upon related to the right claimed by plaintiff over a pathway situate on the eastern side of her property which led to Kelind line. Access to the pathway from the gate installed on the eastern boundary of her property was blocked by defendant putting up a wall, and he had put up an unauthorised car