T.K. Joseph, J.

1. The appellants are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The Civil miscellaneous appeal arises from an order of remand.

2. The suit was for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the nearest reversioners of one Kesava Pillai (deceased) and for setting aside an order in O. S. No. 288 of 1950 declaring defendants 1 and 2 as the legal representatives of Kesava Pillai. The trial court held that defendants 1 and 2 were the heirs of Kesava Pillai, being his widow and daughter, that the suit was not maintainable as the legal representatives of one Thanu Pillai -- one of the brothers of Kesava Pillai -- were not impleaded and that S.42 of the Specific Relief Act was a bar to the suit. The trial court accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court set aside the decree and remanded the suit for fresh decision after impleading the heirs of Thanu Pillai. It was however observed by the learned District Judge that he would have agreed with the view that the suit was not maintainable under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act but for the order of remand he made. In the words of the learned Judge, the remand was ordered "in the interests of jus