K. Abraham Mathew, J.

In this appeal filed by the plaintiffs in a suit for partition, the judgment of the District Judge, Palakkad in A.S. No. 158/1995 by which he passed an order of remand is challenged.

2. After the passing of the preliminary decree for partition, a final decree application was filed. It was found that actual partition of the property was not possible. The court ordered sale of the property among the co-owners, for which it appointed a commissioner. The sale was adjourned at the request of one of the defendants. Later the property was sold on 09.06.1993 to the plaintiffs, who were the highest bidders. The commissioner filed a report before the trial court. Thereafter, he filed a supplementary report with regard to the share of profits also. The trial court considered both reports on 30.06.1994. It is seen from the certified copy of the order passed by the trial court in the final decree application that the parties "had no objection in passing a final decree in accordance with the commissioner's report". It passed a final decree dividing the sale consideration among the co-owners in accordance with the preliminary decree. The plaintiffs/purchasers took de