A party who does not appeal an order of remand which is appealable is precluded from disputing its correctness in subsequent stages of the same proceedings, as per S. 105(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- This Letters Patent appeal is directed against the judgement of Mohan J. dismissing A.S. No. 142 of 1973 (Pondicherry), preferred against the judgement and decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1972 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry.

2. The suit properties originally belonged to one Thirumalai Reddiar of Thirubuvanai in Pondicherry State. He had five daughters and one son. One of his daughters is one Kumudavalli who was married in 1930 to one Venkatakrishna Reddiar of Kanjanur in Gingy taluk within the State of Tamil Nadu. Thirumalai Reddiar by a deed dated 27-6-1933 donated the suit properties to his daughter, Kumudavalli. Kumudavalli died issueless on 23-1-1941, leaving behind her husband, Venkatakrishna Reddiar. Andalammal, one of the sisters of

Kumudavalli, claiming that she is the heir of Kumudavalli, sold the suit properties to one Krishnaswami Reddiar on 16-5-1960. Coming to know of the said sale by Andalammal, Venkatakrishna Reddiar claiming to be the sole heir of Kumudavalli had in his turn sold the properties to one Muthu Reddiar on 19-3-1962.

3. Subsequent to his purchase, Muthu Reddiar filed a suit in the court of first instance under French Procedure by assignation dated 19-7-1962, for a declaration of his title to the properties and possession against Krishnaswami Reddiar and Andalammal. Muthu Reddiar's case in his suit was that Kumudavalli, the original owner of the property, having been a Hindu residing within the French territory, on her death in the year 1941, the properties devolved only upon her husband under the customary law applicable to Hindus in French Territory and that, therefore, Venkatakrishna Reddiar had validly sold properties to him. The case of defendants 1 and 2 Krishnaswami Reddiar and Andalammal was that Kumudavalli ceased to be a French national and became an Indian national as a result of her marriage with an Indian citizen and therefore her properties situate in French territory were subject to French law relating to foreigners and not by the customary Hindu Law as alleged by Muthu Reddiar.

4. The court of the first instance held that Kumudavalli had lost her French nationality on her marriage with Venkatakrishna Reddiar, an Indian National, by the application of Art.19 of Code Civil as modified by law dated 2-6-1889 that consequently Kumudavalli's estate should be governed by the French law as embodied in Art.3(ii) of Code Civil, that if the said Article is to govern the rights of parties, in relation to the suit properties, Venkatakrishna Reddiar as husband of Kumudavalli cannot succeed to the properties, and that in the absence of any descendants or ascendants to Kumudavalli, her sister, Andalammal became entitled to succeed to the properties. In this view the suit came to be dismissed.

5. There was an appeal to the District Court in AS No. 34 of 1967. The appellate court disagreed with the view taken by the court of the first instance and held that even as per Art.19 of thee Code Civil as modified from time to time Kumudavalli had not lost her status as a French subject even after marriage and that, therefore, the properties left by her should be governed only by the customary Hindu Law applicable to Hindus in French territory. However, in order to find out whether Kumudavalli's estate devolved upon her husband or upon her sister, under the customary Hindu law, the appellate Court felt it necessary to have a finding on the form of marriage between Kumudvalli and Venkatakrishna Reddiar. According to the appellate court if the marriage had been performed in Brahma form the husband will be the heir, and on the other hand, if the marriage had been performed in Asura form, Kumudavalli's sister will be the heir. As the trial Court did not give any finding on that aspect, the appellate Court remitted the case to the trial Court for fresh disposal and permitted the parties to adduce evidence on that point.

6. After the remit order the suit was renumbered as O.S. N