Kuldip Singh, Judge.:-Plaintiff Smt. Chinta Devi is in appeal against the judgment dated 26.12.2002 passed by learned District Judge, Mandi in Civil Appeal No. 16/2000 remanding the case to the trial Court for fresh decision. The parties are referred in the same manner as in the trial Court.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that plaintiff filed a suit for partition regarding land comprised in Khewat Khatauni No. 74/83, Khasra No. 86, measuring, 25-11-7 Bighasa situated in Mauza Samlehar, District Mandi, H.P. claiming one third share in the suit property. It has been alleged that there is a house consisting of three rooms situate on the suit land denoted by Khasra No.86/1 which was also constructed by one Chetu, predecessor in interest of the parties. She has claimed one third share in the land as well as in the house. It has been alleged that defendant No.2 is stated to have executed relinquishment deed of her share in favour of defendant No.1 which is wrong and illegal. On these facts, plaintiff filed a suit for separating her one third share in the suit property.

3. The suit has been contested by defendants by filing written statement and they have taken the plea that plaintiff has no locus standi to challenge the relinquishment deed. There is another building near the house stated in the plaint and that building has not been included in the suit, therefore, suit is for partial partition and is not maintainable. It has been admitted that suit land and house situated on the suit land is joint of the parties and each having one third share in it. The defendant No.2 has relinquished her share in the favour of defendant No1 and, therefore, defendant No.1 has two third share and plaintiff has one third share in the entire property. It has also been pleaded that suit has been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction.

4. The following issues were framed by the trial Court- (i) Whether the parties are joint owner in possession of the suit land? OPP (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for separate possession of the suit land by way of partition? OPP (iii) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiff has not locus standi to file the present suit? OPD (v) Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD (vi) Relief. The trial Court passed a preliminary decree on 18.11.1999 by holding that plaintiff has one third share in the suit land comprising Khata Khatuani No. 74/83 Khasra No.86 measuring 25-11-7 Bighas and house situated thereon and the remaining two third share is owned by defendant No.1.

5. Defendant No.1 Smt. Meena Devi filed the appeal against the preliminary decree dated 18.11.1999. The District Judge has held that trial Court has not framed proper issues and re-framed issue No.3 as follows:- Issue No.3(A): Whether there exist another building over the suit land consisting of three rooms and as to whether same was constructed by the plaintiff? OPP Issue No.3(B): In case Issue No. 3(A) is not proved whether the suit for partial partition is not maintainable? OPP

6. The District Judge ultimately remanded the case on 26.12.2002 by impugned judgment to trial Court for fresh decision with a direction to the trial Court to give opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence, if any on issues No. 3(A) and 3(B). The liberty was also given to defendants to apply for additional evidence or appointment of local Commissioner, if any, case is made out and the trial Court shall consider the application in accordance with law. The judgment dated 26.12.2002 has been assailed by way of appeal.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

8. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that learned District Judge has erred in remanding the case. The parties were aware of the real controversy. The issues No.3 and 4 are enough to cover the controversy whether the