Arun Bhansali, J.

This appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(u) CPC has been filed by the appellants-defendants aggrieved against judgment and decree dated 26.03.2015 passed by Additional District Judge No. 3, Chittorgarh, whereby, the appellate court has partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondents and has remanded back the suit to the trial court to decide the same issue-wise.

2. The respondents filed a suit for cancellation of registered release deed dated 11.10.2007, declaration and permanent injunction against the appellants, inter alia, with the averments that the land comprised in new Araji Nos. 222, 225 and 226 ad measuring 2.2800 hectare situated in village Netavalgarh Pachhali, which was recorded in the name of plaintiff – Dhapu Bai as successor of her real brother Mohan Lal, in which, she has ¼th share, the partition of the property has so far not taken place. It was claimed that defendants, who are brother and nephew of the plaintiff have fraudulently got release deed dated 11.10.2007, regarding property, executed in their favour, which was liable to be cancelled. Averments were made pertaining to the reasons for cancellation of the said release deed.

3. The written statement was filed by the defendants-appellants defending the release deed.

4. Based on the averments of the parties, the trial court framed eleven issues, which read as under:-

^^1- vk;k xzke usrkoy x<+ ikNyh rglhy fpRrkSM+x<+ esa fLFkfr fookfnr vkjkth ¼uohu½ ua0 222] 225 ,oa 226 dqy fdrk 3 dqy jdck 2-28 gSDVj fLFkr gS] tks oknh;k ,oa mlds HkkbZ ca'khyky] HkkHkh Lo0 uanwckbZ o izfroknh la[;k&1 ds la;qDr [kkrs dh gS\ & oknh;k

2- vk;k oknh;k ewy iq:"k nyhpan dh iq=h gksus ls fookfnr vkjkth;kr esa oknh;k dk uke fojklr ls [kkrs ntZ gqvk] ftlls oknh;k dk 1@4 gd] fgLlk fufgr gS\& oknh;k

3- vk;k okn ds iSjk la[;k&3] 4] 5 esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj fnukad 11-10-2007 dks izfroknh la[;k&1] 2 us oknh;k ls /kks[kk dj fcuk crk;s] oknh;k ds 1@4 fgLls dk jftLVMZ gd R;kx izfroknh la[;k&1 ds gd esa djk;k] ftlls gd R;kx fujLr ;ksX; gS\ & oknh;k

4- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 us gd R;kx fnukad 11-10-2007 ds vk/kkj ij oknh;k ds 1@4 fgLls dk bardky la[;k&435 fnukad 05-11-2007 dks Lo;a ds uke ij djk;k] tks oknh;k ds gd] vf/kdkjksa ds eqdkcys fujLr ;ksX; gS\ & oknh;k

5- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 ds uke [kkrk [kqy tkus ls izfroknh la[;k&1] 2 feydj fookfnr vkjkth;kr esa fufgr oknh;k ds 1@4 fgLls dks tcju vU; yksxksa dks fodz;] jgu] csg] c['kh'k djus ij o tcju dCtk Nhuus ij mrk: gS ftlls oknh;k LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk fMdzh ikus dh gdnkj gS\ & oknh;k

6- vk;k oknh;k dk [kkrs esa uke eksguyky dh fojklr esa HkkbZ&cfgu gksus ds vk/kkj ij [kkrk ntZ gqvk gS\ &izfroknh la[;k&1] 2

7- vk;k oknh;k 95 o"kZ dh o`) efgyk ugha gksdj 80 o"kZ dh gS ftldk 1@4 fgLls ij dCtk ugha gS\& izfroknh la[;k&1] 2

8- vk;k ;g okn U;k;ky; ds Jo.kf/kdkj] {kS=kf/kdkj dk ugha gksdj jktLo U;k;ky; dk gS\ &izfroknh la[;k&1] 2

9- vk;k ;g okn iw.kZ U;k;'kqYd ij ugha gS\ &izfroknh la[;k&1] 2

10- vk;k izfroknh la[;k&1 us fookfnr Hkwfe dk jdck izfroknh la[;k&2 dks fnukad 08-10-2007 dks gh :å 4]50]000 esa fodz; dj dCtk ns fn;k izfroknh la[;k&2 us [kkrk [kqyok fy;k gS] rks bldk vlj D;k gS\ &izfroknh la[;k&1] 2

11- vuqrks"k\ & oknh;k**

5. Evidence was led by the parties. The trial court by its judgment and decree dated 07.01.2013 decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 6 and issue Nos. 3 to 5 together. Qua issue Nos. 9 and 10, it was indicated that the said issues were not pressed by the defendants and based on its findings on the issues, the suit was dismissed.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants filed first appeal.

7. The appellate court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the trial court has decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 6, 3 to 5 and 9 & 10 together, whereas, different issues should have been decided separately, as the issues were not related to each other but contradictory. It was also held that the trial court only noticed that issue Nos. 9 and 10 were not pressed, which is not in accordance with law and, consequently, set asid